Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (JAPANESE TRADE CONTROL).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the continuing Japanese policy of obstructing the import and export trade of all other nations with the occupied areas of China, he will discuss with the Government of the United States the possibility of imposing retaliatory restrictions on Japanese trade with British and American territories?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): His Majesty's Government are in close touch with the United States Government on all matters of common interest in the Far East, but I am not prepared to make any further statement at present.

Sir A. Knox: Is it not true that this restriction and interference with trade are getting worse and worse every day, and, unless something is done, the Japanese will never stop, but it will continue to get worse?

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is possible for British firms in China to carry on import and export business in the occupied areas, through normal trade channels, in any line of goods in which Japanese firms have a competing interest?

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the quality and kind of goods which may be imported into the occupied areas of China are determined by Japanese trade bureaux, with the result that only foreign goods which cannot be provided by Japan will in future obtain entry; and what steps he is taking to protect British trade?

Mr. Butler: As regards the trade position in the occupied areas of China, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 29th January. While there are no hard-and-fast rules as to the kind of goods of which import is permitted and the practice varies in different parts of the occupied areas, the system of trade and exchange controls set up by the Japanese tends to favour Japanese interests. His Majesty's Government, in common with other interested Governments, have made repeated representations against the discrimination involved, but have hitherto received no satisfaction.

Mr. Hannah: Is it not time that we, in combination with America, spoke to Japan in exceedingly plain language?

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Japanese regulations restricting foreign trade in the occupied parts of China have resulted in Japanese officials and others establishing a vast system of illicit commissions and bribes as the only means of obtaining the necessary licences to import or export goods; and whether he will ask the Japanese Government to take action to bring these practices to an end at once?

Mr. Butler: Whether or not the situation is as described, my right hon. Friend would not feel able, without concrete evidence of prejudice to British interests, to take the matter up with the Japanese Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — BULGARIA.

TURKISH AGREEMENT.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have been kept fully informed of the negotiations leading up to the recent Turko-Bulgarian Agreement; and whether he will make a statement upon the bearing of the agreement on British interests?

Mr Butler: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the Question, I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that in the preamble to the agreement it is stated that the agreement is without prejudice to the two countries' contractual engagements with other parties. The hon. Member will also


no doubt have seen the clear statement on this subject which the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs has since made to the Press.

Mr. Mander: May I take it that the British Government are fully satisfied with the way in which our Turkish Ally is carrying out its obligations?

Mr.Butler: Yes, Sir.

SITUATION.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the position in Bulgaria; whether he can give any information concerning the sudden closing of the British Institute at Sofia; and whether it was closed by order of the Bulgarian authorities?

Mr. Butler: As regards the first part of the Question, all information suggests that German preparations for an occupation of Bulgaria are now far advanced. As regards the latter part of the Question, His Majesty's Minister was given discretion to arrange for the departure of the staff of the British Institute when he considered that circumstances made it desirable to do so. I assume that he has now exercised this discretion, but he has been asked by telegraph to report.

Mr. Cocks: Will the Government inform the Bulgarian Government that unless they are prepared to defend their independence by force, they will be regarded as a hostile country and their communications will be bombed?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA.

POLISH SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS.

Sir William Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the action of the Rumanian Government in sending many Polish refugees in Rumania to be interned in German concentration camps at the request of Germany; whether any representations were made to the Rumanian Government in the matter prior to the severence of diplomatic relations; and what explanation was given?

Mr. Butler: On 31st January the competent Rumanian authorities informed

the Chilean Legation, who are in charge of Polish interests in Rumania, that all interned Polish soldiers would be sent to Germany immediately. A protest was lodged by the Chilean Chargé d' Affaires at this violation of international law, and His Majesty's Minister at Bucharest vigorously supported this protest. The only explanation given by the Rumanian Government was that they regarded this question as a purely internal matter which they were not prepared to discuss. Sir Reginald Hoare immediately expressed the strongest disapproval of this attitude. Subsequently on instructions from His Majesty's Government he formally notified the Rumanian Government that, if so base an act as the return of soldiers were committed, His Majesty's Government would not forget that General Antonescu and the members of his Government bore personal responsibility for it. When His Majesty's Legation left Bucharest on 15th February, it was understood that the Rumanian Government had at least temporarily delayed their proposed action, but there is some reason to suppose that it may now have taken place. The Rumanian Government also announced on 8th February that civilian Poles in Rumania would have to leave the country and state whether they wished to go to Germany.

Sir W. Davison: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the statement he has just made, that a vigorous protest was made, will be received with warm satisfaction in this country?

BRITISH ARMS AND CREDIT.

Mr. Maxton: (for Mr. McGovern)asked the Prime Minister the number of aeroplanes sent to the Rumanian Government since August, 1938; the amount of other war material; and total amount of money given or lent and the amount of credit?

The Lore Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): Under an agreement made with the Rumanian Government on 12th July, 1939, guarantees have been given in connection with orders placed with United Kingdom manufacturers for the export to Rumania of various goods, including war material. It would not be in the public interest to give particulars of the nature or value of the goods supplied.

Mr. Maxton: What is the point now in keeping this quiet? Why should there be any secrecy?

Mr. Attlee: Well, why not?

Mr. Maxton: That is not the point. The point is that on several occasions to-day we have had that type of negative answer from Ministers, and there is absolutely no reason for any secrecy here. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether His Majesty's Government feel that they have had full value for the money they have expended on Rumania?

Mr. Attlee: That is another question, but I think my hon. Friend will see that there is a very obvious reason why we cannot state what arms have been sent to Rumania.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the position in Tangier?

Mr. Butler: I must apologise for the length of this answer; it deals with matters in which the House has shown great interest.
Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid has now concluded his discussions with the Spanish Government about the position of Tangier to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs referred in his reply to the hon. Members for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) on 22nd January. It will be recalled that these discussions were undertaken with a view to concluding pending a final settlement a provisional arrangement concerning British rights and interests in the international zone at Tangier which would be without prejudice to the rights of His Majesty's Government and to the rights of third parties under the relevant international instruments. His Majesty's Consul-General at Tangier took part in the discussions at Madrid, and at an early stage delegations of British and Spanish traders in Tangier were invited to Madrid to see the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Industry and Commerce. The delegation of British traders declared themselves well satisfied with their reception in Madrid

and with the assurances given to them by the two Spanish Ministers.
The arrangements now concluded safeguard the existing personal rights of British subjects in Tangier, and guarantee the continued functioning of the existing British institutions and of the British Press. British officials of the international administration who have been displaced will be fully compensated for their loss of office. A special economic and financial ré gime will be applied at Tangier generally similar to that which exists at present. An ordinance in general terms was issued by the local Spanish authorities on 6th February which is to be elaborated in greater detail in due course. The Spanish Government have given an assurance that there will be no fortification of the zone. It has also been agreed that, if at any time the Mixed Tribunal should cease to function, the Consular Court will be re-established and fully recognised.
By these arrangements the present economic and legal rights of British subjects in Tangier should be adequately safeguarded pending a final settlement. His Majesty's Government have recognised the special interest of the Spanish Government in the Tangier Zone and also that it is not possible at the moment for the signatories of the relevant international instruments to enter into negotiation. Thus His Majesty's Government maintain their protest against the original action of the Spanish Government and have reserved their rights under the treaties in force. The Spanish Government has similarly reserved their position. In the Debate on 19th December, I stated on behalf of His Majesty's Government that it was clearly in the interests of an independent Spain an a of the United Kingdom that there should be cooperation between our two Governments, but that such co-operation equally clearly depended on the readiness of both parties to make a contribution to it. It is in the spirit of this declaration that His Majesty's Government have now accepted the arrangements concerning Tangier.

Mr. Clocks: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the answer, which I should like to study carefully, I would like to ask whether it was made perfectly clear in this agreement that the present régime in Tangier is regarded as provisional only?

Mr. Butler: I said in my answer that the arrangement is a provisional one, and that our rights are reserved under the relevant international instruments.

Sir Percy Harris: Could the right hon. Gentleman say who will be responsible in Tangier for watching our interests?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Consul-General, who has done such excellent service throughout the negotiations, will continue his work in Tangier.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the British subjects who were wrongfully dismissed without excuse from the administration have not been reinstated rather than merely compensated?

Mr. Butler: I think perhaps the hon. Member will wish to study in detail the statement I have made. I would like to say that the compensation terms are generous.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPANISH REPUBLICAN REFUGEES, CASABLANCA.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a suitable ship has yet been found for the Spanish republican refugees who have reached Casablanca on their way to America; and what steps our Consul-General in New York is taking in the matter?

Mr. Butler: The effective control of the vessel originally chosen, the "Lovcen," was in the hands of persons controlling a shipping line engaged in supplying the enemy in Albania and thus assisting their unprovoked assault upon our Ally, Greece. His Majesty's Government have accordingly felt unable to grant any facilities. His Majesty's Government would, however, be prepared to grant facilities if a suitable vessel is found. His Majesty's Consul-General in New York has been informed of the position.

Miss Rathbone: my right hon. Friend instruct his representative in New York to try and assist these people in securing a suitable ship, as they have already contracted for the ship that is blacklisted?

Mr. Butler: Certainly, we will do any-think we can

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance of the relations between the Soviet Union and Turkey, he will make some effort to meet the objections of the Soviet Union to the proposals made by His Majesty's Government on 22nd October last; whether he will publish those proposals together with M. Vyshinski's comments on the same; and whether the Soviet Government have made it clear that in their view the de jure recognition of the union of the former Baltic States with the Soviet State is an essential preliminary to a wider agreement?

Mr. Butler: As I informed the hon. Member on 19th February, the Soviet Government have not yet carried this matter any further. Meanwhile it is not possible to deal with the points raised in this Question.

Mr. Cocks: Is it not a fact that our position in the Balkans would be immensely strengthened by an agreement with Russia, and is it not important that British interests should not be sacrificed to a theological prejudice?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (RECRUITS, SOUTH WALES).

Mr. Mort: asked the Secretary of State for Air why recruits for the Royal Air Force ground staff, from South Wales, have to travel a long distance for interviews; whether he is aware that on occasions, two days have to be spent there waiting their turns, and whether he will consider devising a more economic system, whereby money, and valuable time spent, often by men engaged upon important work, could be saved?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): A centre has now been opened in South Wales where recruits, other than aircrew candidates and certain specialist tradesmen, will be attested.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

WAR PHOTOGRAPHS.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Information whether film photographers are now included as a


matter of course on such expeditions as the shelling of Genoa, the capture of Benghazi, and the more important air raids over enemy territory?

The Minister of information (Mr. Duff Cooper): The inclusion of film photographers on the more important military operations must in the nature of the case depend upon the accommodation available. On land, accredited Newsreel cameramen and cameramen of the Army Film Unit cover all important operations. At sea, it has so far been possible to cover almost all major operations by accrediting newsreel cameramen to the chief shore commands and stationing a few film photographers on particular ships. Unfortunately, in the case of the bombardment of Genoa the cameraman was unavoidably prevented from being present. In the air, the problem of accommodation is especially difficult, but efforts are made to secure as full a film record of the air war as circumstances permit.

Mr. Bartlett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Germans send film photographers and even descriptive writers on a great number of air expeditions, which helps Dr. Goebbels very much in his task of preparing a case against this country? Could he bring some pressure to bear, or would he consult with the Secretary of State for Air as to whether something more could not be done along those lines?

Mr. Cooper: I am continually discussing the matter with the Service Departments, and they are willing to co-operate so far as possible, but, of course, military considerations must come first.

FILMS.

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Minister of Information what steps are being taken by his Film Department to produce films of the same technical excellence as "Britain Can Take It," but designed less to arouse sympathy than to carry conviction of the growing power of the British Commonwealth?

Mr. Cooper: The Films Division of the Ministry of Information is actively engaged upon the production of films conceived with exactly the object that the hon. Member has in mind. "Heart of Britain," a recent Ministry five-minute film, is of this type, designed to give an

impression of the moral, industrial and military strength of this country, and of our determination and ability to strike the enemy hard. Fourteen other films carrying a similar message are in course of production.

Mr. Granville: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this film has been a great success in America? If films are produced with a greater element of propaganda, is it not likely that they will not be so successful?

Mr. G. Strauss: Are there in contemplation any films of longer than five minutes — of similar length to "Britain can take it"?

Mr. Cooper: The films vary in length. There are life-story films and shorter, graphic, realistic films of events which are taking place, such as the Libyan campaign.

Mr. Woodburn: Could the right hon. Gentleman not get better publicity for a film like "Convoy," which gives a splendid picture of the British Navy at work?

Mr. Cooper: That film had good publicity, and was a great success.

Mr. Lawson: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of taking places in some of the great towns and admitting people free, as the Dominions do at their places in London?

Mr. Cooper: That hardly arises out of this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT BUILDING CONTRACTS.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether, in view of the criticism by the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure of the system of cost-plus-fee contracts, he will give an assurance that he has not adopted, and will not adopt, this form of contract for any of the work that has been or will be carried out for other Government Departments?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): I cannot give such an undertaking, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the use of the form


of contract to which he refers will be limited by my Department to those cases in which it is clearly the only suitable form.

Six A. Knox: What is the object of the formation of this very expensive Ministry if it is to continue to perpetrate the same vices as the War Office did formerly?

Mr. Hicks: I cannot add to my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

ABYSSINIAN PROPERTY.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the receiver appointed at the request of the Italian Government to administer Abyssinian property in Jerusalem is still functioning; and will he now set that receivership aside in view of the relations existing between the British Government and Italy, and grant the same diplomatic rights and privileges as enjoyed by the Czecho-slovakian Consul to the Abyssinian Consul in Palestine?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): The High Commissioner for Palestine reported in November last that the Palestine Government will not oppose any application which may be made by the Ethiopian authorities to the Palestine Courts to terminate this receivership. With regard to the second part of the Question, an inquiry is being addressed to the High Commissioner.

Mr. Adams: Can my hon. Friend say when we are likely to have information on the latter point?

Mr. Hall: No, Sir; not at present.

RUMANIAN JEWS.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what answer he has returned to the request from the Jewish Agency in Palestine for permission to admit to Palestine some of the Jews driven out by the Iron Guard pogroms in Rumania?

Mr. George Hall: My Noble Friend is in communication with the High Commissioner for Palestine on this subject.
The right hon. Gentleman may be assured that the question is being sympathetically examined; but he will realise that, now that Rumania has passed under enemy control and His Majesty's Representative has been withdrawn from the country, there are serious difficulties to be overcome.

Mr. Wedgwood: But will my hon. Friend also consider that a great many refugees of Rumanian nationality who are not Jews have been allowed into Palestine? Should permission not be given to those who are our friends, rather than to those who are either our enemies or are allied to our enemies?

Mr. Hall: That matter is being considered

Oral Answers to Questions — DAMAGED ITALIAN FLEET,TARANTO (AWARDS)

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state with accuracy the damage done to the Italian Fleet by the Fleet Air Arm at Taranto; and also what awards were given to the pilots who delivered this torpedo attack?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The damage announced in the Admiralty communiques of 13th and 15th November has been fully confirmed by subsequent reports, one of the battleships of the "Cavour" class having apparently been abandoned as a total loss. Another vessel of this class and a "Littorio" class battleship were badly damaged, and are still out of action. There is no further information of the two cruisers which were shown by aerial photograph to be listed to starboard and surrounded by oil fuel, or of the two fleet auxiliaries which were lying with their sterns under water. Two D.S.Os. and four D.S.Cs. have been awarded to the crews of the aircraft which took part in this action.

Sir M. Sueter: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is an adequate reward to these pilots of the Fleet Air Arm for knocking out half of the Italian battle fleet?

Mr. Alexander: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend would wish the Board of Admiralty to receive and consider the


recommendations of the Commander-in-Chief. I think it is quite possible that further recommendations will come from the Commander-in-Chief.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA.

BANANA SALES.

Mr. Riley: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make any statement regarding the banana situation in the West Indies?

Mr. George Hall: The position of banana producers in Jamaica has been safeguarded by the guarantee of a minimum return on a stated output given by His Majesty's Government last year, of which details were given in my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle) on 4th December. The efforts of the Government of Jamaica to increase sales to the United States have already met with considerable success, thanks to the co-operation of the marketing companies concerned, and it may be hoped that these sales will further increase during the summer, when the demand is greater in Northern America. Bananas for which an export market cannot be found are being disposed of locally by sales at low prices, and to some extent by free distribution, and inquiries as to possibility of disposal in the form of banana flour or dried bananas are still proceeding.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that no bananas are being destroyed?

Mr. Hall: No bananas have been destroyed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Mr. Riley: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a revision of the constitution of the Legislative Council of Jamaica is at present under consideration; whether he will give an assurance that in making any such revision public opinion in Jamaica will be consulted; and to provide that effect shall be given to the two recommendations of the West Indian Royal Commission that the Legislative Council should be made truly representative of the people of Jamaica, and that the election of such representatives should be based on adult suffrage?

Mr.George Hall: The answer to the first and second parts of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part of the Question, these are matters which are still under consideration.

Mr. Riley: Is my hon. Friend fully aware of the tremendous feeling that has developed in Jamaica over the lack of consultation of the Jamaican people in regard to the revision of the constitution, and is there to be any consultation over the extension of the franchise?

Mr. Hall: I can add nothing at the moment to the reply I have given. The proposed new constitution has not been discussed, but certain matters have been discussed by the Legislative Council, and those matters have been considered in the negotiations which are proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LENGTH OF TRAINS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many trains, owing to their excessive length, have to draw up twice at stations; and will he consider devising some scheme by which passengers for any particular station could be notified to get to a certain part of the train, and thus save the time of one draw-up?

The Minister of Transport (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): In order to accommodate the passengers who present themselves, many trains have to be made up to abnormal lengths, and though the railway companies' staff endeavors to arrange that passengers are loaded into that part of the train which stops first at platforms where the whole train cannot be accommodated, it has been found impossible to ensure this in all cases, especially when all seats are occupied.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that there have been many accidents in the blackout, through people getting out of that part of a train which is not drawn up at a platform? Will he endeavour to expedite steps to deal with this matter?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I drew the attention of the railway directors to Questions asked by my hon. Friend last week, but they pointed out that it is difficult to get people to move from seats once they have taken them.

Mr. G. Strauss: Is that not impossible, owing to the congestion?

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Has it not been the practice at many stations to mark certain coaches for certain places? Could that system not be extended?

Lieut. - Colonel Moore Brabazon: Measures of that sort are being carried out.

Mr. Keeling: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that some railways are much better than others in this matter? Could not the bad ones be raised to the level of the good?

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Transport how many people have been killed and how many injured, presumably by motor vehicles which failed to stop; and in how many cases the vehicles were traced in the year ended 31st December, 1940, or nearest convenient date?

Lieut.- Colonel Moore- Brabazon: I regret the information asked for is not available.

RAILWAY WORKERS (INJURIES).

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the great decrease in the number of injured work men reported by the railway companies to the Ministry in 1940 as compared with K)39 and 1938, he will inform the House of the difference in the nature of accidents which call for report at the present time as compared with the two previous years?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Before 1st September, 1939, the railway companies were required to report all injuries to their servants involving an absence from duty of more than three days, but during the war period, so far as injuries are concerned, reporting has been limited to cases of serious personal injury.

RAILWAY CHARGES.

Mr. Silkin: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that the increased revenue for 1940 of the main line railways and the London Passenger Transport undertaking exceeds the increased working costs of these under takings by nearly £7,000,000, he will give an assurance that no further increases in railway charges will be sanctioned in respect of the increased working costs in 1940?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The figure mentioned by my hon. Friend does not take account of a number of items, including losses on collection and delivery services and other ancillary businesses, which reduce the £7,000,000 to about £2,500,000. The increase in net receipts on railway working was due in the main to increased traffic and was wholly earned in the first six months of 1940, in comparison with the first six months of 1939, when traffic was low. My hon. Friend is, I know, fully aware of the principles underlying the financial arrangements at present existing between the Government and the controlled undertakings, and he must, therefore, realise that I cannot give him the assurance for which he asks.

Mr. Silkin: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that there will be very considerable dissatisfaction in the public mind if fares are increased while the railway companies are making increased profits?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am fully aware of that, I can assure my hon. Friend.

RAILWAY TRAINS (HEATING).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many trains are not properly heated and that service men and other passengers have complained of this during journeys taking over an hour; and whether he will look into the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: l If my hon. Friend will furnish me with details of any complaints, I shall be happy to have inquiries made.

ACCIDENTS (EUSTON STATION).

Mr. Hannah: (for Sir J. Graham Kerr) asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents have happened through persons stepping off the edge of platforms at Euston Station during black-out periods; how many of such accidents have involved injuries serious enough to require hospital treatment; and, in view of the representations made on this subject, what steps have been taken to minimise the risk of such accidents at this station?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Montague): The company are required to report only


fatal accidents and those involving serious injury. Since 1st September, 1939, four accidents in the latter category have been reported which resulted from persons stepping off platforms at Euston Station during the black-out period. I deeply regret that in one of these my hon. Friend suffered a grave injury. I am informed that platform edges are now whitened for a width of eight inches with a hard surface paint, and that instructions have been given for this to be washed daily before the black-out period commences.

LONDON-DURHAM RAILWAY SERVICE.

Mr. Batey: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that last Thursday nearly 200 passengers from London to Durham, and intermediate stations, were sent from Darlington to Bishop Auckland and there left stranded; and will he inquire why the officials at Darlington and Bishop Auckland stations were so indifferent to the getting of passengers to their destinations and consider expediting the service to Durham which last Thursday took 14 hours from King's Cross?

Lieut -Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

SUB-SURFACE REPAIRS.

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will arrange that highway authorities outside the London Civil Defence Region will adopt the ruling of the London Region to bear the cost of reinstatement of bomb-craters and of openings by public utility undertakings for the inspection of subsurface works near such craters?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: It will be arranged that public utility undertakers outside the London Civil Defence Region whose pipes or mains laid under highways are damaged by enemy action shall be relieved of the cost of reinstating the highway after repairing their property.

''HELP YOUR NEIGHBOUR" SCHEME (PETROL).

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore:

40. To ask the Secretary for Petroleum whether he will state the amount

of petrol issued during the month of January in augmenting the allowance of those motorists engaged on the free-lifts plan; and what machinery is in force for ensuring that such petrol is consumed solely on the purposes for which it was allowed?

Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Before this Question is answered, may I ask for your Ruling or advice? I addressed the Question in the first instance to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Transport, and it was accepted by the gentleman at the Table, which, I think, was an indication that it was all right. I then received a courteous intimation from the Minister of Transport that my Question had been passed on to the Secretary for Petroleum, but surely, although the Secretary for Petroleum would issue the petrol, it must be by the sanction and authority of the Minister of Transport, and therefore it is the Minister of Transport who should be answering the Question that I addressed to him?

Mr. Speaker: If the Question of the hon. and gallant Member was transferred, obviously the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not the proper authority to answer it.

Sir T. Moore: I beg to ask Question No. 40.

The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The additional issues of petrol involved in the "Help Your Neighbour" Scheme have not been large, but it would not be in the public interest to state the amount or to disclose the machinery In force for detecting abuses. I may say, however, that fines ranging from £10 to £50 have already been inflicted by the courts, and many other cases are under investigation.

Sir T. Moore: As obviously the machinery is not very satisfactory, is my hon. Friend aware that, in many cases, the particular additions of petrol are being used by a particularly pernicious type of motorist for a particularly selective kind of hospitality?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend and myself in co-operation, when we started this scheme, realised that there might be some abuse of it, but we felt at the time —I think, rightly —that it was well to


take that risk in view of the definite contribution that the scheme made in the circumstances.

Sir T. Moore: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that that contribution is being made by the right people for the right people?

Mr. Lloyd: Broadly speaking, I should say, Yes; but, on the other hand, the question of the continuation of the scheme is to be reviewed shortly by my right hon. Friend and myself.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does not the greatest safeguard against abuse lay in the fact that if a man does not use his petrol for the purposes indicated, his neighbours would give him away?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES.

SPORTS GOODS.

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now decided to withdraw the virtual monopoly given the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes for the sale of sports equipment to members of the Forces so that private traders shall have restored to them the right to compete for this business on equal terms?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): As my hon. Friend is aware, this matter has recently been under review, and my right hon. Friend expects to make a statement very shortly.

Mr. Lipson: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say when that statement will be made?

Captain Waterhouse: …I cannot say when it will be made, but the egg is almost boiled.

SKILLED MEN (UTILISATION).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there are highly skilled men, including many engineers, bricklayers, the Armed Forces, who are passing their time picking up paper, cooking, scrubbing floors and other fatigues; that there is growing concern over this among the engineers who are working with and training dilutees; that some hon. Members have visited Government Departments and had correspondence with Ministers with little effect; and will he consider the best steps

to deal with this problem and issue instructions so that the men's services and skill shall be utilised in the national interests?

Mr. Attlee: The question raised by the hon. Member is under constant review, and many thousands of tradesmen have already been transferred to arms where their skill can be employed. Thousands more have been released to civil life at the request of the Ministry of Labour. I would remind the hon. Member that the modern mechanised Army must have large numbers of tradesmen, who cannot all be employed at their trades when the Army is not in the field, but whose services are vital when fighting takes place and equipment needs quick adjustment or repair.

Mr. Smith: While I accept the last part of the Reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the growing uneasiness among engineers and other skilled men, and the fact that I am constantly receiving complaints from young men who have been doing this work, he will see that attention is given to this matter again?

Mr. Attlee: The matter is under the constant attention of the Ministers concerned.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that agricultural workers are not essential to grow food in the Army?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE.

RECRUITMENT.

Mr. Emery: asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the unfavourable criticisms in the Fourth Report of the Committee of National Expenditure, upon Departmental efficiency, he will alter the method of selection of entrants into the Civil Service so that Government Departments may obtain more competent staffs with the training and resource required for handling problems, in the solution of which the Committee reports that there has been Departmental failure to profit by the lessons of earlier crises?

Mr. Attlee: I do not read the Committee's report as implying any general condemnation of the efficiency of the Governmental machine; such a judgment


would be ungenerous and untrue, and my right hon. Friend could not for a moment subscribe to it. Since the outbreak of war permanent recruitment to the Civil Service has been suspended, and additional staff is obtained as necessary by the engagement of experienced people from the business and professional world.

DISCIPLINARY ACTION.

Mr. Emery: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether disciplinary action, similar to a court-martial in the Navy, is taken to follow the unfavourable criticisms that have been reported, on several occasions, by the Committee on National Expenditure; and, if such is not the practice, will he institute this system for increasing the efficiency of the Civil Service by also retiring the inefficients?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): Suitable disciplinary action is taken in appropriate cases; the second part of my hon. Friend's Question does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT SERVICE).

Mr. Horabin: asked the Prime Minister the number of honourable Members not serving in His Majesty's Forces who are engaged in work on behalf of the Government; how many are in receipt of salaries; and how many receive payment for expenses incurred by them in carrying out these duties?

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister the number of Members of this House, other than Ministers and those in the Navy, Army and Royal Air Force, who are now serving in Government Departments, or holding Government positions with or without salary; and whether he will publish a list?

Mr. Attlee: I would refer the hon. Members to the White Paper on this subject which is available to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — BIG BEN (NINE O'CLOCK STRIKING).

Sir W. Davison: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the power of concentrated thought, he will consider the

desirability of making a broadcast statement, suggesting to British citizens throughout the world that they should as far as possible unite together every night during the minute set aside for reflection at the striking of nine o'clock by Big Ben, on some such thought as the continual virility of the British Empire, and how essential is its maintenance for the future peace and freedom of the world?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. I do not feel able to accept the proposal. Nine p.m. British Summer Time is not 9.0 p.m. throughout our great Empire. I should regard it as inappropriate to broadcast nine strokes of Big Ben at 6.0 a.m. in Australia or in the middle of the night in India and Malaya.

Sir W. Davison: Would it not be possible to choose some particular time when the great majority of British citizens throughout the world could concentrate upon some such stimulating thought as "Britain and her Dominions fight to the end for Freedom and Justice —God give victory soon "?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

BINOCULARS.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Supply the total cost of the campaign to secure binoculars for the Forces, including printing, posters, advertising and salaries, and the total number of binoculars which have been received?

The Joint Parliamentary' Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am not in a position to give the total cost of the campaign to secure binoculars, but the cost of advertising, including printing and posters, will be less than the sum of £10,000 allowed. Much of the work of the campaign was carried out by the staff of the Ministry in conjunction with their ordinary duties, and accordingly it is not possible to give any reliable estimate of the salary cost attributable to the binocular campaign. Over 55,000 binoculars have been received.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that some of us who have sent binoculars have not even had any acknowledgment of their receipt as yet?

Mr. Macmillan: I will look into that matter; there has been a very rapid response to the appeal.

AUSTRALIAN MACHINE TOOLS.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the orders recently accepted by manufacturers of machine tools in Australia for delivery to the Japanese Government, he will take steps to acquire the total output of such tools from the Dominion?

Mr. Macmillan: Inquiries have been made into the matter to which the hon. Member refers. I understand that the production and export of machine tools in Australia are under strict control, and that no orders for Japan have been accepted by any Australian manufacturer.

Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this statement was made by the '' Times '' correspondent in Australia?

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend must realise that the matter is one for the Australian Government, and I cannot give information for them.

HOUSEHOLD WASTE (COLLECTION).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will give the names of those local authorities with populations of over 10,000 which so far have not organised a system for the regular collection of household waste; and what action he proposes to take to persuade them to do so?

Mr. Macmillan: Following the issue of directions under the Defence Regulations, all local authorities with a population of over 10,000, except 10 who have only recently received the direction, have reported that systems have been organised for the regular collection of household salvage. The last part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. De la Bè re: Is not my hon. Friend aware that Tottenham made a splendid success of this waste collection, and cannot he urge still more strongly that it is absolutely vital in the national interest that every ounce of waste should be collected and made available for feeding-stuffs for cattle?

Mr. Macmillan: We are constantly urging local authorities to increase their efforts, which, however, do vary.

Mr. De la Bère: But would my hon. Friend bring pressure to bear on them? It is no good urging; we want to bring real pressure to bear on them

Mr. Simmonds: Does my hon. Friend's Department check to see whether the various local authorities do this work effectively and not merely nominally?

Mr. Macmillan: There is a monthly return of salvage collected which shows the amount collected per head of the population.

Mr. Simmonds: Does the Department take the matter up with local authorities if it is not satisfied that the work is being well done?

Mr. Macmillan: That is the purpose of the monthly returns.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my hon. Friend do something more to galvanize the local authorities into life?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

FISH FRIERS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider the advisability of controlling the price of fish and altering the present basis of allocation of cooking media to fish friers, in view of the great difficulties being experienced at the present time in this trade?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): My Noble Friend has the question of controlling the prices of fish under active consideration. As regards the allocation of cooking media to fish friers, he sees no. reason for making any alteration in the present basis which ensures equitable treatment between individual fish friers and between fish friers and other users.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that there is great dissatisfaction among fish friers on this subject, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see a deputation representing the National Federation of Fish Friers?

Major Lloyd George: I am always prepared to see anybody, but I cannot see the reason for their dissatisfaction. They get exactly the same as others, because there is perfectly equitable distribution.

Mr. Mander: None the less, there is great dissatisfaction.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether


he is aware that cods' fillets used by fish friers have now reached the price of 30s. a stone, as against 6s. a stone pre-war; and whether any steps are being taken to prevent the deprivation of the working class of their rightful share of the country's fish supplies?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the second part of my reply on 29th January to a Question by the hon. Member for Shettles-ton (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Higgs: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that restrictions have been applied in the case of many foods before they have increased in price five times, and does he not consider that some restriction is long overdue in this case?

Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend is probably aware that the industry is at the present time trying to devise a scheme. I will say frankly that this is by far the most difficult problem the Ministry has to deal with. The industry is now engaged in devising a scheme, and everything that we can do to bring it about will be done.

RATIONING (INTERNEES).

Mr. Keeling: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that Germans interned in the Isle of Man get meat five and cheese two days a week; and whether he will allocate meat and cheese so that British citizens may have priority over enemy citizens?

Major Lloyd George: The scale of rationing for internees is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and of prisoners of war for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. In the case of prisoners of war scales have been laid down by the Geneva Convention to which it is necessary to adhere. I am in touch with both my right hon. Friends on the subject.

Mr. Keeling: Does my hon. and gallant Friend realise that there is strong feeling in the country about the absurd favouritism which is extended towards interned aliens?

Miss Rathbone: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the great majority of the internees in the Isle of

Man are not enemies but regard themselves as Allies in a cause which is theirs as much as ours?

Sir W. Davison: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that a number of people have received letters from internees in the Isle of Man in which they thanked the Government for the wonderful time they are having?

TEA (GIFTS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that people in this country who have friends in India or Ceylon can receive a packet of tea up to 14 lbs. in weight; and what action he intends taking in the matter?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware of the possibility that people who have friends in India or Ceylon prepared to send unsolicited gifts could receive packets of tea up to the weight mentioned. Until a few weeks ago the number of such gifts coming forward was negligible, but there has recently been evidence that an increase may be expected. An alteration in the regulations limiting the amount of tea which can be received will be published in the course of the next few days.

Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that people in this country who have friends in Ceylon and India can get 28 lbs. of tea — 14 lbs. from each place? Is not that a very serious matter?

Major Lloyd George: The original idea was that unsolicited gifts —those not paid for —should be allowed to come in, but I regret to say there is some evidence that this is being commercialised. The whole matter is being very carefully watched.

Mr. Thorne: Is there any possibility of stopping this kind of business?

MINERS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will give consideration to the position of the mineworkers in respect of rationing of food and place them in the same position as the places where, through canteen arrangement, one good hot meal is provided each day; and, as this cannot be done for the miners, will he see to it that they get it through their rations?

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on I2th February to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).

Mr. Tinker: As I have not seen that reply, perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would tell us what it is.

Major Lloyd George: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would see me afterwards, as the reply was rather long.

EGGS (PRICES).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will issue the schedule of egg prices for six months ahead as the prices for cattle and sheep are being published, so that poultry keepers may know where they stand and adjust their business accordingly.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 4th instant to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Howdenshire (Colonel Carver).

Sir P. Hurd: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that in the opinion of those who know the way in which this egg business is being managed by the Ministry of Food, it is bringing us near to a far greater shortage, if not a stoppage, of egg supplies?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot altogether agree with my hon. Friend. He knows the difficulty as well as I do, which is largely a question of feeding-stuffs. Poultry keepers were warned about last June that there would be a shortage, and they should have acted accordingly. In the circumstances, therefore, I cannot agree that it is the fault of the Ministry. With regard to the question of fixing prices for six months ahead, my hon. Friend must appreciate that this would lead to absolute chaos.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Are we not deliberately killing the chicken that lays the golden eggs?

Mr. Burke: Is it not the fact that the price of eggs to-day is substantially the same as about this time last year, whereas the cost of feeding-stuffs has gone up so enormously that there is no comparison between the two?

Major Lloyd George: The prices fixed for eggs were fixed after taking into con-

sideration the percentage increase in such things as feeding-stuffs.

Mr. Burke: But the rise in the price of feeding-stuffs is out of all proportion to the rise in the price of eggs

Major Lloyd George: You cannot make a comparison between the prices of these two commodities. A number of other factors besides the price of feeding-stuffs must be taken into account in determining the costs of egg production.

Mr. De la B ére: Is it not a fact that poultry keepers have not had a square deal?

CHEESE (FARM WORKERS).

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, seeing that the scattered character of rural areas makes it impossible to provide ample meals at canteens as in urban areas, he will allocate an adequate supply of cheese to farm workers to enable them to do their essential tasks?

Major Lloyd George: Cheese is distributed by the Ministry so that the different areas of the country receive supplies so far as practicable in proportion to their needs. My Noble Friend is, however, reviewing the operation of the present system with a view to improving the distribution of cheese.

Sir P. Hurd: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that in camps in my constituency cheese is absolutely thrown away day after day? Why cannot it be used by his Department?

Major Lloyd George: We do, of course, strongly deprecate the waste of food at the present time, and if my hon. Friend has any cases to bring to my attention I will gladly look into them.

Sir P. Hurd: Cases have been brought before the Ministry, and nothing has been done.

COMMUNITY FEEDING.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the communal feeding centres that are being set up are intended only as a war emergency measure or if it is the present intention of His Majesty's Government that they shall be a permanent feature of our national life after the war?

Major Lloyd George: Community kitchens are being set up as a measure of food economy during the war period, and in order to assist the war effort by providing well cooked food for those engaged on work of national importance. No decision has been made respecting the continuation of community kitchens after the end of the war.

Mr. Summers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what is the saving in food in volume and value resulting from communal feeding as opposed to individual household feeding; and whether the figures given are an estimate from pre-war experience or have they been gained since the introduction of communal feeding by local authorities?

Major Lloyd George: I regret that I have no particulars on which a reply could be based to my hon. Friend's Question.

MEAT RATION.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food how many protests he has received against his recent announcement that it was possible for the meat ration of is. 2d. per head per week to be implemented; and how many of those protests came from persons engaged in the wholesale and retail meat trade?

Major Lloyd George: I received about 80 letters on this subject, of which approximately one-quarter were from members of the wholesale and retail trade. In each case I instituted local inquiries. Such reports as I have so far received substantiate the statement referred to by my hon. Friend. In certain instances, however, it would appear that butchers failed to avail themselves of the special reserves of canned meat provided by the Ministry to assist those traders finding themselves short on their ration towards the end of the week.

Mr. Davies: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department in touch with the local food officers? Do they convey proper information on the actual facts to the Department in London?

Major Lloyd George: Certainly, we constantly receive reports from them.

Mr. Davies: Why is it, then, that we get different answers from the hon. and gallant Gentleman for different localities?

Major Lloyd George: I do not accept that statement. When I answered a previous Question on the matter, I explained that owing to certain local circumstances there might be deficiencies in certain areas, and that where that occurred there was a reserve of tinned meat which could be drawn upon to make up the ration.

Mr. R.J. Taylor: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in some districts they deny that they have had any opportunity of getting canned meat to make up the ration?

Major Lloyd George: I regret it if that has been the case, but it is not our fault. Ample publicity has been given to the matter, and now that it has again been brought to our attention, we are again drawing the attention of those concerned to the availability of this reserve supply.

INSHORE FISHING.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the shortage of various rationed food, he is satisfied that, where possible, the maximum effort is made to promote inshore fishing?

Major Lloyd George: Inshore fishing operations have been hampered to some extent by restrictions imposed in the interests of national security and by the calling up of many of the fishermen for service with the Armed Forces. The question of the removal of these restrictions is constantly under review by the Departments concerned, and I am satisfied that they are doing everything possible to minimise the effect of these handicaps and to promote the inshore fisheries so far as war conditions permit.

Mr. Higgs: Does my hon. and gallant Friend consider that this very important source of food supplies has received adequate attention in the past?

Major Lloyd George: The past is another matter altogether. At the present time, considering the restrictions that have had to be imposed owing to the war, it is amazing that the catch is as high as it is.

CONFECTIONERY, NORTHERN IRELAND.

Dr. Little: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, owing to the scarcity of confectionery in


Northern Ireland, which is proving most injurious to the interests of traders engaged Therein, he will arrange for a more liberal supply to be made available of the different sorts, and specially of sweets at a moderate price?

Major Lloyd George: Supplies of ingredients to confectionery manufacturers in Northern Ireland are rationed at the same rates as in Great Britain. Manufacturers generally in Great Britain are endeavouring to distribute their reduced production equitably amongst their prewar customers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but a certain number of small confectionery manufacturers in Great Britain are finding dicffiulty under war conditions in shipping their reduced supplies to Northern Ireland, and this matter is receiving the attention of the Ministry.

Dr. Little: In view of the serious shortage, would my hon. and gallant Friend sec that wholesale and retail confectioners in Northern Ireland get their proportionate share of the available material?

Major Lloyd George: Most certainly.

Mr. Woods: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that manufacturers in their allocation to retailers are taking into account the redistribution of children throughout the country through evacuation?

Major Lloyd George: We have for some little time past been able to give manufacturers the actual figures of the redistribution of population, and now that the' have that information I expect and believe that they will allocate supplies accordingly.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that neither in evacuation areas nor reception areas is it possible to find chocolates or sweets?

POTATO STARCH, NORTHERN IRELAND.

Dr. Little: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the abundance of potatoes in Northern Ireland and their high starch content, which ranges in two varieties from 18.4 to 20.4 per cent., he will arrange for a factory or factories to be established there for the production of starch from these potatoes, both as an article of food and for commercial purposes?

Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend is advised that stocks of farina —or potato starch —in this country are at present adequate for essential industrial requirements, and arrangements have already been made to ensure the best use of the Northern Ireland potato crop. The possibility of using potatoes for the manufacture of farina is, however, being kept under constant review in the light of changes in the supply position.

Dr. Little: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that in war-time the farina industry is of enormous value to Northern Ireland, where there is a surplus of potatoes which, by agreement, have to be paid for by the Ministry of Food even if they are not utilised?

Major Lloyd George: If my hon. Friend makes inquiries, I think he will find that the potato surplus in Northern Ireland is not so large as was anticipated when he asked a Question on this subject the last time.

Dr. Little: I do not need to make the inquiries. In Northern Ireland there are fields full of potatoes.

WORKERS, SILVERTOWN (FEEDING FACILITIES).

Mr. J. H. Hollins: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the provision of a canteen in the vicinity of the Victoria and Albert Docks, Silver-town, in order to supply hot meals to the workers in the docks and factories in that area?

The Additional Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): My right hon. Friend has obtained a detailed report on the feeding facilities for workers employed at these docks, and is actively considering, in consultation with the Ministry of Food, what can be done to improve them as quickly as possible. The problem is not merely one of opening one or more additional canteens, which may not in fact be the best way of proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

RESCUE PARTIES (GLOVES).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent gloves have been issued to members of rescue parties?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): Local authorities have been authorised to provide leather gloves for rescue parties on the basis of one pair of gloves for each working member of the party. Where they cannot obtain them locally, the Department is in a position to make supplies available.

Mr. Simmonds: Is my hon. Friend aware there is a grave deficiency in these gloves, and that rescue parties have largely ceased using picks and shovels, because it was found that these tools injured those who were trapped under the debris, and that they are now using their bare hands and suffering many injuries? Could my hon. Friend see that some specific action is taken to deal with this matter?

Mr. Mabane: If my hon. Friend will bring to my notice typical cases, I will look into them.

FIRE WATCHERS.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Home Secretary whether he intends to permit an employer to demand the resignation of an employé from the local Civil Defence Services in order that he may serve as a fire watcher at his place of work?

Mr..Mabane: As my right hon. Friend stated in the answer which he gave on 6th February to a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) he has issued a public statement indicating that no pressure whatever should be brought on effective members of the Civil Defence Services to leave those Services and take up fire-fighting duties at their place of work. He has since communicated with the Employers' Organisations on the subject, and I welcome this further opportunity of again drawing public attention to this matter.

Mr. Simmonds: Has my hon. Friend power to prevent an employer from taking this action? It is no use making appeals. Some men are doing it, and it must be stopped.

Mr. Mabane: My hon. Friend will realise that this would imply power to prevent any member of the Civil Defence Services from resigning. That is a different matter.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Home Secretary what steps he has taken to secure that employers, including Government Departments, shall not compete for the services of paid fire-watchers by offering remuneration at excessively high rates?

Mr. Mabane: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on 20th February to a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr).

Mr. Simmonds: Is my hon. Friend aware that this scandal is still continuing? Have the Government powers to stop it, or are they simply avoiding using the powers which they possess?

Mr. Mabane: As my right hon. Friend said in the reply to which I have referred, his attention had been drawn to these cases, but he preferred to see the effect of recent Orders concerning fire prevention before considering whether any further action could with advantage be taken. That is the position to-day.

Mr. Simmonds: Has not sufficient time elapsed for that decision to be made? Are the Government running away from their responsibility in this matter?

Sir W. Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware of the difficulty in obtaining men for fire-watching in the City of London except at wages which people cannot afford to pay?

PERSONNEL (MEMORIALS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether, in addition to the allowances made to relatives for funeral expenses arising from the death of Civil Defence workers, he will also consider either a grant towards a memorial stone, or some arrangement for the erection of a memorial stone at a future date, as was arranged after the last war in the case of fallen Service men?

Mr. Mabane: The question of the most suitable mode of commemorating Civil Defence volunteers and other civilians killed by enemy action must, I think, be left to be decided at a later date. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Imperial War Graves Commission have recently been granted a Supplementary Charter entrusting the Commission with the duty of compiling the necessary records for this purpose.

Mr. Sorensen: Am I to take it that this covers Civil Defence workers as well as Service men?

Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir.

Mr..R. C.Morrison: Would not the best way of commemorating the dead be to look after their dependants?

REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS (EMOLUMENTS).

Mr. Horabin: asked the Home Secretary what is the daily allowance for expenses paid to Regional and Deputy Regional Commissioners not in receipt of salary; what is the total amount paid to these persons since the outbreak of war; and whether he will publish a statement of expenses?

Mr. McGovern: asked the Home Secretary what are the names of the Commissioners for Civil Defence and their Deputies for each area; the salaries paid in each case; and the amount of expenses in each case, respectively, from 3rd September, 1939, to 1st February, 1941?

Mr. Mabane: As regards the names and salaries of the Regional Commissioners and Deputy Regional Commissioners, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 5th February. The expenses incurred by Regional Commissioners and Deputy Regional Commissioners are not paid where claimed by way of daily allowance but are paid against vouchers that they represent sums actually spent I £n carrying out the duties. The total amount so paid since the outbreak of war is about £7,300, but my right hon. Friend sees no point in publishing a statement of expenses.

Mr. Mabane: Would these Regional Commissioners be entitled to speak in the House on the subject of their work?

Mr. Maxton: What is the point in not publishing a statement?

Mr. Mabane: Some of these gentlemen perform their duties without salary and some with salary. In the past, the view has been taken that to publish any statement would not be necessary.

Sir H Morris-Jones: What is the reason for all this secrecy? Is not the House entitled to know what are the salaries and expenditure of these gentlemen, as is the case with other public servants?

Mr. Mabane: My hon. Friend will find particulars in the answer to which I have referred.

Mr. Granville: Is there any limit to these expenses?

Mr. Mabane: I regret that I have nothing to add to my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (BRITISH FILM).

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: (for Mr. Wedgwood) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received a report from His Majesty's Ambassador at Cairo relative to the alleged banning of the film ''London Can Take It" by the Egyptian Government?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I understand that a single print of the film was sent to the British Embassy in Cairo for private exhibition, but not for public showing. It was not submitted to the Egyptian censor.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (CANTEENS).

Sir F. Fremantle: (for Sir Leonard Lyle) asked the Secretary of State for War whether canteens which are being established in the vicinity of camps serve meals to soldiers in competition with the rations supplied for the same soldiers in camp; and whether he will investigate these methods to prevent waste of rations and to ensure that these canteens confine themselves to supplying commodities other than orthodox meals?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): An instruction is being issued restricting the sale of food, including chocolates and sweets, in all canteens in camps and barracks in the United Kingdom during the hour and a half before, and the two hours after, the usual time at which the main meal of the day begins.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGES AND COMMODITY PRICES.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will at once take all necessary steps to peg the cost of the essential items on a revised cost-of-living index; and, further, whether he will consider pegging wages and the cost of living?

Mr. Attlee: I cannot go into all the implications of this Question within the limits of Parliamentary answer, but I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) on 18th instant.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend realise that these problems will not outwear themselves, and that some action will have to be taken in the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Horabin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has under consideration the payment of family allowances; and whether he is in a position to make a statement on the matter?

Captain Crookshank: This matter raises many controversial questions and could not be dealt with by way of Question and answer.

Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that nearly every economist in the country has been pressing for a long time for family allowances as a means of preventing malnutrition without precipitating inflation? Will not the Government at last pay attention to this long-neglected subject?

PURCHASE TAX.

Dr. Little: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in Northern Ireland both the retailer who supplies moquette for covering Chesterfield suites, and the manufacturer to whom it is supplied for that purpose, are required to pay Purchase Tax on same, thus making a twofold payment; and whether, as this differs from the practice in Britain, he will order that one payment be made on the material used either by the retailer who provides it or the manufacturer who uses it in producing the article of furniture?

Captain Crookshank: I am not aware of any difference in practice between Northern Ireland and elsewhere in Great Britain. But representations have been made on the matter to which my hon. Friend refers, and means are now being considered of avoiding double taxation in such circumstances.

Dr. Little: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see to it that there is no differentiation between Britain and Northern Ireland in this matter? Is he aware that I have had a circular placed before me where a manufacturer was told he would have to pay tax on a commodity on which the retailer had already paid tax?

Captain Crookshank: I must make it clear that there is no difference in practice in this matter between Northern Ireland and the rest of the country.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

General Sir George Darel Jeffreys, K.C.B., K.C.V.O., C.M.G., for the county of Hants (Petersfield division).

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE BILL.

order for third reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time.—(King's Consent signified.)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I do not disguise from the House the fact that I am glad to have reached this stage of this Bill. I am sure the House will realise that my first thought is to thank my right hon. Friends the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the President of the Board of Trade for all the help they have given to me in connection with this very complicated Measure. If the House will permit me, I should like to say also how much I have been assisted by my advisers at the Treasury, and to say a word on behalf of the Parliamentary draftsman who, in spite of the fact that we have incorporated many Amendments in the Bill and in spite of the limited time available to draft this Measure, has made a great contribution. I would add at once that this Measure could never have reached this stage in the proceedings — well on its way now to the Statute Book —without the co-operation and the good will of the House. It would have been an impossible task. AH the way through hon. Members have been animated by no other desire than to improve the Measure, and I think we can claim that this Bill, as it now reaches us and as it will shortly go to another place, has received very expert examination in spite of the very short time which has been available. Anyone who said the Bill had been hurried through would be making a great mistake. Nothing is more contrary to the fact. We have been helped very much in the course of the Debates by people who have brought a considerable amount of knowledge and experience to bear on these problems. If we had to look round for a justification for democracy, and for the House of Commons itself, I should point to the proceedings of the House on this Bill.
I have been in the House for many years, and it has been my lot to be asso-

ciated with a number of very complicated Bills. I remember one in which I was associated with the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain in connection with a famous formula, when it was suggested that we ought to bring a blackboard into the House and try to demonstrate what we really meant by some means of that kind, but I really think this is the most complicated Bill with which I have been associated. When I introduced it I never contended that it was a perfect Measure. I brought it forward in the hope that I should receive the assistance which, in fact, I did receive. Some of its provisions must obviously be by way of experiment and trial. We are doing what we can, in very difficult circumstances, practically without precedent, and the contribution which the House has made has been given in the hope that its provisions, when they reach the Statute Book, will work fairly and justly, but we may very well have to alter and amend them in the light of experience. We shall have to see, particularly as regards the main principles of the Measure, whether they will in fact work out as we desire them to do. If, in the light of experience of the Measure and its administration, things came to light which demand serious attention, I should not hesitate to come forward with further proposals. But I would suggest that its main principles are right. The Bill was generally demanded and generally approved, and up to this hour we have heard no dissenting voice as to the need for the Measure. The principles on which it is founded are surely right, and they have been carried out to the best of our ability. We have laid down generally the sharing of burdens. We have, at any rate as far as property is concerned, declined to give any preference or consideration to any particular part of the country which might be considered safer than any other, and generally, in the allocation of compensation, we have endeavoured to see that a sufferer may have proper compensation and restoration and reparation.
There are only one or two matters that I would mention as the Bill goes forward. There is a provision relating to public utilities, and I was asked to say a word on the Third Reading with regard to that matter. In moving the Second Reading, I referred to it specifically and explained


that what was then Clause 30 meant in effect that provision would be made for the application of a war damage scheme at a later date to railway, dock, gas, electricity and water undertakings. Provision, however, was made for advances to such undertakings in the interim towards the cost of urgent works of repair. I expressed regret that it would not be possible to deal fully with these undertakings in the present Bill, and I promised that we would do our utmost, in consultation with those concerned, to expedite the presentation of proposals to Parliament. Since then the provisions have been extended so that the Clause, now Clause 34, covers undertakings, including mines and other concerns, which, though not public utility undertakings in the accepted sense, are valued in the same way for rating purposes —that is, by reference to profits or output. All these undertakings present special problems the existence of which means that, for one reason or another, the scheme of the present Bill could not be applied to them as it stands. There has, of course, been very little time during its passage for detailed consideration of the further measure regarding these public utility and other undertakings. I repeat, however, the assurance that no time will be lost and that the interests concerned will be given further opportunities of expressing their views to me and that, after full consideration of them, the proposals of the Government will be laid before Parliament. These proposals will involve these undertakings in making suitable contributions as a necessary counterpart to the grant of appropriate compensation. Meanwhile we have taken power in this Clause to make payments towards the cost of works certified to be urgently required, so there will be no difficulty in that respect.
Another matter that I should like to refer to was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), who asked me to make a statement concerning it, in relation to the business scheme for farmers. My hon. Friend raised some question about the variable values which the farmer has at risk at different times of the year. It has been urged, as is the fact, that in the winter he may have no more at risk than twice the rental value of the farm, whereas during the summer, when the crops are harvested, the insurance value may be many times that

amount. My hon. Friend made various suggestions, including one that there should be a three-monthly policies and that farmers should be allowed to take up a voluntary part of the insurance in three or six-monthly periods. I think he was under the impression that a farmer would be compelled to take up this additional insurance for the whole year. I should like to prevent any misapprehension arising in that connection.
The policy, compulsory or voluntary, can be taken out for a period of three months only. In fact, it may probably be for two months, so it is not at all likely that the difficulty which my hon. Friend envisages will arise, as a farmer will be entitled to insure for different amounts in each of the different periods. My hon. Friend and the House may be assured that the Board of Trade are fully aware of the farmer's difficulties, caused by the varying values of his insurable goods over different periods of the year, and it will be their object to adjust this to meet the requirements of the position and suit the farmer's needs. In fact, there is complete power in the Bill to deal with these matters after the Measure becomes law and, in any event, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be guided by his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, and they will do everything possible to meet the needs of the farming industry.

Sir Joseph Lamb: My right hon. Friend said that the farmer would be able to insure for different amounts. I take it that the compulsory insurance of twice the rent will be over the whole period as a different amount will be created by the extra insurance which the farmer himself wishes voluntarily to make.

Sir K. Wood: I will have that point replied to in the course of the Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) asked me to make a statement on a matter which is important to a large number of people, namely, the position of hire-purchase goods. The position is this. Under the powers contained in the War Risks Insurance Act, 1939, the Board of Trade has declared hire-purchase goods to be uninsurable under the commodities scheme, which means that, automatically, they


become insurable under the business scheme unless declared to be voluntarily insurable under the commodities scheme by reason of the new powers contained in the present Bill. It was at first intended and it was set out in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, that goods supplied under a hire-purchase agreement concluded after the passage of the Bill, should be voluntarily insurable under the commodities scheme, that is at £4 10s. per cent, and secondly, that goods sold under an agreement concluded before the passage of the Bill should be voluntarily insurable under the business scheme at £1 10s. per cent. It has been represented that all such goods should come under the business scheme and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is prepared to consider this suggestion sympathetically. In any event, what is clear is that the Board of Trade will have power, first, to maintain the existing exemption from the commodities scheme and, secondly, to bring all such goods within the business scheme, either compulsorily or voluntarily.
Finally, I wish to say some words to the House about the work which lies ahead of us on this matter. I do not disguise from the House that a very considerable task awaits us. This Measure will place great responsibilities and duties upon Ministers but even more upon the War Damage Commission. I have taken steps in the last few days, with regard to invitations and the membership of that Commission. A very responsible task will lie upon it and I am most anxious that it shall command public confidence. I am endeavouring to secure not the representation of interests but the benefit of the experience and knowledge of practical people. That will be my aim. The Commission will, of course, have to face an important administrative problem. I have already told the House that I am arranging for the Commission to decentralise, as far as possible, the settlement of straightforward claims. If this Measure is to operate to the satisfaction of the people, every endeavour must be made for prompt settlement and I would remind my hon. Friends of a very important Clause in the Bill by which immediate grants can be made to people who have suffered at the hands of the enemy and who require advances. There are indications, to-day, that a large num-

ber of people will come forward to take advantage of this Clause and to ask for advances, in respect either of their business premises or of their homes, in order that they may be enabled to rent or purchase other property, or in order that they may be enabled to carry on little businesses. Some of these cases are among the greatest tragedies that have happened and it is essential that the Commission should be able to deal properly with these cases.
Therefore, as I say, we shall endeavour to decentralise the administration of the scheme as far as possible and we intend to open offices in the towns in which are situated Civil Defence Regional Commissioners. We have selected those towns because there are already posted there responsible representatives of Government Departments with which the Commission will have to co-operate. We propose to set up four regional offices in the London area. Obviously, it will take time and there will be considerable difficulty with regard to the recruitment of staff, but I am glad to say that much preliminary work has already been done, with my approval, because I thought I might anticipate the leave of the House in this respect. I have been fortunate to obtain an experienced official as Secretary designate and also the voluntary help of a well-known business man, Mr. Graham Cunningham, whose name may be familiar to some of my hon. Friends in connection with the work of the Childrens' Overseas Reception Board. Mr. Cunningham and the gentleman whom I propose to appoint as Secretary of the War Damage Commission, have already begun work and with a staff, which at present numbers 30 or 40, we have established headquarters for the Commission. They have, for some weeks now, been engaged in finding offices in the various towns which I have indicated and in the equally important task of selecting the individuals to take charge of those offices. I cannot conceive of a more responsible task at this time than that of securing the technically qualified and accessible men to place at the head of these offices. They will have to meet people who will often be in great anxiety and trouble and who have to be properly looked after. We have also worked out a scheme for indexing the claims and correlating them with the reports which are furnished by


local authorities of damaged buildings in their respective areas.
Next I should like to say a word about the form of claim. I have heard in the course of these Debates considerable criticism of the form of claim known as V.O.W.I. We are devising a new form of claim to replace that. It is designed, and I hope it will achieve the object, to enable an ordinary person to fill it in without professional assistance. This form may be described as giving a notification of damage rather than as a form of claim, and the intention is that when the simple notification has been made it will be followed up with further inquiries and instructions appropriate to the circumstances of the particular case. It is our ideal, and one which I hope we may be able to accomplish in connection with claims, to interpret this complicated Measure in the simplest possible way. As regards those who have already submitted claims on form V.O.W.I to the Inland Revenue District Valuer, arrangements are being made for those forms to be handed over to the War Damage Commission. The claims themselves and the information given on the form do not, of course, fit completely the new scheme embodied in this Bill, but those forms will be regarded as a formal notification of claims. Anyone who has sent in such a form will not be asked to renew his claim, though he may, no doubt, receive from the Commission a request for further information or be given instructions as to his future procedure.
As regards Scotland, I have already stated that two of the Commissioners will be Scotsmen learned either in the law or practice of that country, and I am making that provision because of the difference in the law and practice there. A special office of the Commission will be opened in Edinburgh, and the Department of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is assisting me in selecting a suitable officer to take charge of that important office. Arrangements have also been made for an officer of the Northern Ireland Government to act as a local representative of the Commission in Belfast. And, of course, I have not forgotten Wales. Wales will have a suitable Deputy-Commissioner, with a head office at Cardiff. I can only say in conclusion, in regard to the work of

the Commission, that they must of necessity, if they are to make a success of their job, as I have no doubt they will, act in the closest possible consultation with the various local authorities and Departments concerned.
A question was put to me in relation to voluntary hospitals. It will be the duty of the Commission to consult with the Ministry of Health, and I am assured by the Minister of Health that if he is consulted on questions affecting voluntary hospitals, he for his part will consult the various organisations representing the voluntary hospitals movement, such as King Edward's Hospital Fund, and the British Hospitals Association, and, I have no doubt, the particular hospitals concerned. In other words, I hope that one of the bases of the administration of this scheme will be full, cordial and close cooperation with all those who have to share in the duties of the administration.
I thank the House for the care and attention which they have given to this Bill. I feel that we may claim it to be a joint product of the Government and the House of Commons. I believe it will be of great benefit to the owners of both large and small houses and to the owners of businesses and factories. It is a great thing at this time to feel assured that there is on the Statute Book a Bill which is as just and as equitable a Bill as I think we can make it, a Bill containing many provisions which will give immediate help, and I hope satisfaction, to those who are so manfully standing up to the attacks of the enemy. I particularly commend the alterations we have made in the chattels scheme. I am glad to see this morning that the revised scheme has been universally welcomed. I will only claim for this Measure in conclusion that it is one more piece of tangible evidence both of our confidence in victory and of our determination that the enemy shall not be allowed to inflict irreparable damage on the homes of the nation.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down may I ask one question? Will he make some reference to Clause 73?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The ultimate issue in the great conflict which is raging around the world is between democracy and dictatorship, and I share to the full the view of the


Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Bill in itself is overwhelming proof of the efficiency of democracy when a great task has to be faced. All who have contributed to building up this Measure stone by stone merit a tribute of praise and an expression of our satisfaction. I was delighted when the present Prime Minister told us some few months ago that He and his Government had decided to bring in and to carry through all its stages a Bill of this kind. The Government which preceded the present one had refused to face the hazards of enemy damage which lay ahead, feeling that they were too much. But the present all-party Government has taken its courage in its hands and has faced the business and gone through with it. For that, the Government are to be congratulated.
I would say a word for the Civil Service in this respect. Many criticisms are made of the Civil Service. It is found fault with for all kinds of things, but it is due to that Service that a word should be said in praise of what it has done in regard to the Bill. The major decisions rested with the Government, as they always must, but an immense piece of work is behind this Measure. The Parliamentary draftsmen, who must have the highest meed of praise, and the members of the Civil Service who laid the foundation on which that draft was based, are certainly to be congratulated upon what they have done. Although the House of Commons has made considerable alterations, it remains true that a substantial part of the structure of the original draft is still in the Measure which we are seeing through its last stage in this House. In substance, the Bill as it was originally brought forward still exists.
Having said that, I must add that this Bill is largely a product also of the House of Commons. I am sure that nobody, either on the Government Front Bench or in other parts of the House, will disagree with that statement. The House of Commons has examined with a critical eye all the provisions of the Bill and has suggested Amendments in almost every Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has followed a somewhat novel procedure in the way in which he has considered, with much effect, the criticisms of the House, and he has shown himself a master of House of Commons procedure. He and his colleagues of the Board of Trade

and their skilled advisers have had the good sense to meet the criticisms of the House, not in a perfunctory way, but by genuinely making the alterations which the House of Commons, representing the public opinion of the country, has desired. The result is that the Bill emerges greatly improved.
I think I can give one conspicuous example, and that is the chattels scheme. Not even those who were concerned with the original proposals will attempt to deny that the scheme which we now have is an immense improvement on the scheme as originally brought forward. Public opinion was that the scheme ought to be compulsory and not voluntary. I dare say a good many people think that we now have a scheme which is neither voluntary nor compulsory, but, in fact, we have a compulsory scheme. What might not be quite plain to everybody is that we have a compulsory scheme of insurance, based on the general level of taxation. We must realise that the people who are likely to have furniture are also the householders of the country, who, the Board of Trade tells us, may number anything from 13,000,000 to 18,000,000, and that that body of persons does not differ materially from the general taxpayers. What we are doing, in effect, is to say that people shall pay contributions corresponding broadly to their general tax liability. That is not very far from the mark of what they ought to pay, in consideration of the chattels which they have. There may be a few houseless people who may have to pay while having no chattels, but, broadly speaking, the chattel owners and the taxpayers of the country are one and the same body of people, and we are imposing a burden on the taxpayers to relieve chattel owners of liability. It seems to be a very sensible way of dealing with the matter.
I will mention only one other alteration, which is important and has been very largely a subject of criticism, and that is with regard to mortgagor and mortgagee. The final result perhaps does not do everything which everybody would wish; perhaps that was too much to hope, but we have come much nearer to what the public considers equitable than we came in the original Bill. Two matters are left, as it were, in suspense. One relates to public utilities, in regard to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already


spoken. The other is the relationship of landlord and tenant. I should be out of order to go in great detail into these questions, which do not find expression in the actual text of the Bill, but they do enter it, in a sense. The structure of the Bill will not be complete until the additional building is built alongside it. It resembles those houses and public buildings which are erected with a blank end, which the builders have left for the time being in an unsatisfactory form, till the opportunity arises to build the further part which will make the whole edifice complete. That is the position in regard to these two aspects of the matter. We all hope that there will be as little delay as possible in adding to the structure of the Bill those further matters. They must be dealt with, if there is to be what the public would consider a fair relationship between the different people involved.
That is all I wish to say about the Measure. We have had a remarkable series of Debates and have covered an enormous amount of ground in a very short time. We have seen democracy at its best, and we have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer at his best. He has met the House of Commons, not perfunctorily, but in genuine sincerity and to the benefit of all concerned.

Sir Percy Harris: Perhaps I am a bad hand at paying a graceful compliment, because of my natural instincts, after years of opposition in politics, but I am sincere in congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon his skilful handling of this Measure. His methods are his own. No one has been quite like him, either in piloting a Bill through the House of Commons or in handling the House of Commons itself. He does not try to cover up the paucity of his arguments by oratory, or with phrases and words; he attempts to appeal to the common sense of Members. When criticism is made, he never takes the line of stone-walling it or of bureaucracy; he is always courteous and reasonable. Sometimes we have felt that his methods were different from the methods of other Ministers, and did not quite live up to the traditions of the House; but, on the whole, I am of the opinion that I like his new technique of conciliation and respect for the House of Commons. As the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken so well

said, the Chancellor has justified, in wartime, the working of the democratic machine. The House of Commons has been, for this Bill, a Council of State. We have been encouraged to make our contribution, and the result is a Measure for which we all have to share responsibility.
I was glad when the right hon. Gentleman said that it was more or less a provisional Measure. It is not the final word. Much of its success, I believe, will depend on the personnel and character of the Commission. To make this machine work fairly and to the satisfaction of the public, it is important that the right hon. Gentleman should take men not of the bureaucratic type but with knowledge of the people and understanding of the difficult economic problems that will have to be dealt with. I was also very pleased when the right hon. Gentleman said that he would decentralise their work. I think that is of great importance. Everybody knows how, even with an ordinary Measure, it is difficult for sufferers in conditions like those which we are experiencing to-day to get in touch with what is called Whitehall. It is not the fault of Whitehall. Whitehall, being in London, and having to deal with so many different areas in varying conditions, must inevitably deal with forms. By having in England, Wales, Scotland, London and all the principal areas local offices, able to act quickly and being approachable instead of having locked doors, will largely help towards the success of this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with various Clauses. I would like to make a reference to what I think is a very far-seeing Clause, Clause 8. I do not know who devised it, but it certainly shows imagination, and it is an augury for the future. We do not want the money of the State —and it is the State which is going to make a very large contribution —to be wasted in bad forms of reconstruction. That would be a disaster. I attach great importance to Clause 8, with its anticipation of replanning and building new cities over the ruins of our destroyed cities, so that the money which the State is to find shall not be wasted in recreating the appalling slums which this war may help to clear. This Bill consists of some 90 Clauses, and even the right hon. Gentleman cannot be familiar with all of its detailed provisions. There are to-day thousands of people who are


worried about their future, people who have lost their homes and those who are in fear of losing their homes. One of the first things which the Government or the Commission might very well do would be to publish a popular pamphlet, something like the prospectus of an insurance company, making clear in simple language the provisions of this Bill. The B.B.C. might also be asked to help. In war-time, nothing is better for the morale of the people, not only of civilians but of soldiers who are away from their homes, than to know that the Government and Parliament have made provision to give them some sort of security if and when their homes are destroyed and their furniture burnt out, and that a benevolent State has thought out in detail a scheme to help them over their difficulties. I think that when the provisions of this Bill are made public they will not only be a great heartener to the people of this country but an advertisement to the world that this nation has made provision for its people and is sure of victory.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I hope I may not be regarded as being too severely practical-minded if I suggest that the most important feature of this Bill is that part of it which relates to contributions. I would like to echo what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said when he expressed the view that the special taxpayer here named in the Bill practically coincides with the general taxpayer. In fact, in the course of my Second Reading speech, I ventured to suggest that the difference between the two is about the same as the difference between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
As this Bill goes to another place on its way to the Statute Book, I would like to join with others in expressing grateful appreciation of the trouble which my right hon. Friend —our right hon. Friend —has taken, and the patience and resource with which he has sought to meet the conflicting wishes of the House on this very complicated matter. But I suggest that these very complications, these very conflicts serve to show what happens when, one is insurance-minded about a risk which is essentially non-insurable. I hope I am not breaking in too violently on the Symphonie Pathetique with the strains of the Soldiers' Chorus. But as the Town Clerk of Hastings wrote the other day in reply to inquiries as to a possible safe

place in these islands to which to evacuate, there is no safe place in a fortress. Why should there be? "So perhaps we may reflect that Moses made us this law — meaning no reflection on my right hon. Friend —that Moses made us this law for the hardness of our hearts, for our little understanding.
For as our thoughts progressed in this matter, the first thing we did was to stop calling it an Insurance Bill and to start calling it a War Damage Bill. And as our thoughts progressed further we realised more and more the truth of what my right hon. Friend himself said when he introduced the Bill, namely, that it would be impossible to relate contribution to compensation with any degree of exactitude. So, being practical men, we concentrated on the immediate problem as to who should pay the contribution rather than on the more remote problem as to who at some uncertain time in the future should receive a still more uncertain amount of compensation. Therefore, in the fulness of our understanding, we may come to look upon this Bill, except in regard to its provisions as to advances and cost-of-works payments, largely as an effective tax-gathering Measure. My right hon. Friend wanted some more money; he saw an opportunity, and, partly, this Bill is the result. That is still further evidence of the practical efficiency of democracy and also of how my right hon. Friend himself improves each shining hour. On this sound basis, that the Bill is an effective tax-gathering Measure, I commend it heartily, and in thus seeking to lay bare its secret, I hope I may not lay myself open to the stricture that the honesty of a cynic statesman is as suspect as the piety of a ribald priest.

Major Milner: The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) has, with a witty turn of phrase, poured some cold water on our efforts, but I think that he is right in so doing. After all, things never turn out as well as one hopes they may. On the other hand, of course, they are never as bad as one is afraid they may turn out, and I cannot be dissuaded from offering my meed of congratulation to all concerned with this Bill. For some years I have had the opportunity of seeing the right hon. Gentleman's action on the opposite side of the House —in the strict sense of the term —and according to our particular tempera-


ment during that time we have either admired, envied or resented his Parliamentary skill. But on this occasion we can all congratulate ourselves that the House has had the benefit of it, as well as of the great tact which he has displayed. I think those to whom we are responsible —the householders of the country—will generally feel grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, to his assistants and, indeed, to the whole House for passing this Measure.
The right hon. Gentleman dealt quite shortly with one or two practical matters, and we must all be glad that he takes the view that the Commission must be composed of practical men who know something about the requirement of the people and the great necessity, which I think is almost paramount in this matter, to consider the human needs of those concerned, and above all to ensure at any rate prompt assessment if it is not possible, as we know it may not be, to ensure the prompt payment of claims. I spoke on this subject before, but we all know there is a great deal of congestion in Government offices with regard to claims of various kinds, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, having made a fair start, maybe able to keep up with the claims, although we must not forget that a year and a half have gone in which claims have accumulated, with the result that there is a great amount of work with which the Commission must concern itself.
I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend below the Gangway said about the desirability of making the contents of this Bill clear to the general public. There are many things in which one would like to see them advised at once. It would quite obviously be very wise if every man and woman would at once make an inventory of their furniture and personal belongings, together with such proof of value in the form of receipts, etc., as may be possible, and keep a copy with that proof in some place separate from their own household. There is quite a number of practical suggestions which would simplify the operation of the Measure and would promote a prompt and satisfactory settlement of claims. I hope these matters will have the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman and that he will endeavour to put them into practical shape.
Having said that, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not weary in well doing. There is quite a number of cognate matters which it will be well to look into and to deal with as soon as possible. We all know the multitude of cases of people who have had to leave evacuation or protected areas, who are still in law liable to pay rent but who are perhaps unable to pay it, and to whom no relief in the way of postponement of their liability is, as far as I am aware, available. Similarly, on the other side, there are many landlords and others who are entitled to consideration and help in some form. There are many mortgagors who are quite unable to pay the amounts due on their mortgages and for which they are liable. Consideration is, of course, given to them by the building societies and other bodies, but that consideration is at present limited to a mere postponement of liability, and there is no provision for any modification or relief. There is quite a number of similar cases of which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is well aware and of which the Law Officers of the Crown are certainly aware. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to devote at any rate a little of his time in endeavouring to bring into some complete and comprehensive form all the various types of help in so many directions—personal injuries, disablement allowances, pensions to civil workers, the provisions of the War Damage Bill and so on—which might be put into some complete code, covering, so far as is humanly possible, all the ills to which the civilian is heir in this war. If that could be done, it would be a very remarkable achievement, and I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might give some thought to it.
I would join with all those who have spoken in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman, and I agree that this Bill is certainly evidence of our strong confidence in a victorious and not too distant conclusion of the war in which we are engaged. It is also very clear evidence of our determination to share in common and to relieve where possible the sufferings of those less fortunate than ourselves. Also, I may add, it is one of the fruits of National Government.

Sir Irving Albery: I must say that when I read this Bill when it was first introduced I thought the Chan-


cellor of the Exchequer was going to have a very difficult task. To-day, however, he can certainly congratulate himself; I cannot remember since I have been in the House ever having heard a complicated and important Bill so much welcomed, nor one whose conduct has been praised so highly as that which we have before us to-day, I will not say by the Opposition but from the Front Bench opposite. In his speech to-day the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his thanks in various directions. I could not help wondering when I looked at the printed Bill—it came out of Committee only yesterday, and we have it in our hands to-day, reprinted in its altered form —whether some thanks were not due on this occasion to the printing office, unless perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's intelligent anticipation had eased their way for them.

Major Milner: And to the Clerks at the Table.

Sir I. Albery: The Chancellor mentioned the desirability of sharing the war burdens. If I had a fault to find with this Bill, it would be that I do not think it goes far enough in that direction, and to that extent I think the same criticism can and must still be applied to most Government legislation. I know it is a difficult problem, but in view of the fact that a certain section of the community is being gradually ruined by the war, while another section of the community, in spite of all the precautions which have been taken, is profiting by the war, not enough is yet being done to share the burden, although that has been the express desire of the whole nation, the declared policy of the Government, and, if it were fairly carried out, would meet with universal approval. The part of the Bill which, to my mind, fails in that direction is that which deals with the cost-of-works and valuation payments and, still to some extent, the part which deals with contributions. I rather think that I approach this matter from a point of view different from that of the right hon. Gentleman. War damage would, if there were no War Damage Bill, put in jeopardy a very considerable amount of property in this country, and it seems to me that under circumstances of that kind the steps taken to protect that property in some cases give too much protection to credit. It

seems to me that, in that case, when a third party goes to the help of the debtor, there is a duty to demand that the creditors also shall make some concession. The Bill fails to some extent to take that into account.
Here is another point, about the valuation payments. I should have liked some more definite provision for the man who wishes to rebuild his premises, and is not going to have it done for him on the ground of the national interest. When a man is not going to rebuild, he is only in a similar position to a man whose securities are requisitioned by the Government: he can have no very great cause for complaint. But there is cause for complaint when a man needs his premises, for instance, in order to earn his livelihood. With regard to the chattels scheme, I held the view, because I thought that a contribution should be drawn from all persons, that a compulsory scheme for chattels should be included in this Bill. However, I was not tied to compulsion; the point was that I thought the scheme should be universal. The Chancellor has succeeded in making it universal. Earlier in the Debate he pointed out how little revenue would be received under the scheme if insurance were made compulsory. Anyone who wishes to insure now, up to £2,000 at any rate, is offered insurance on very favourable terms; and if he does not take it, he has only himself to blame. Therefore, the criticisms put forward about that matter have been fully met. In conclusion, I would only say that while I admire the Parliamentary skill with which the right hon. Gentleman has carried this Measure through the House, I hope that it will not be allowed to become a precedent. We have had only a purely formal Report stage, and now we are discussing a Bill which has been materially altered. While that may be justified by the circumstances in this case, I hope that it will not become a habit.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: To save time, I will not add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman to the congratulations of others, who have expressed theirs very well. I rise only to bring forward again a matter which I raised on the Committee stage. I want to deal with a very important institution


which is peculiar to the North of England —our Aged Miners' Homes Association in Northumberland and Durham. Clause 29, which deals with property used for charitable purposes, lays it down that only institutions for the relief of poverty shall come under the Clause. These homes, were originally conceived for the relief of aged miners, who could retire to them at a certain age. We have gone on building these homes, until there are now about 6,000 husbands and wives living in them. They are entirely maintained by the pennies of the miners and the donations of well-wishers. The occupiers pay no rent or rates; they get coals free, and in many cases light free, These homes are a tremendous benefit to the local authorities, because we meet the rates on them, and in many cases the occupiers would otherwise have had to go on public assistance. We should not like them to be designated as almshouses, but they are certainly for the relief of poverty. It was because of the privations that aged miners suffered that these homes were founded 45 years ago. As the years go by, the cost of maintaining these cottages has become heavier, while the income is not increasing proportionately, owing to the limited field from which we are able to draw our income. If we have to pay the insurance premiums, it will be a crushing burden upon us. If our position can be met by administrative methods under the Bill, well and good; if not, I would ask whether something cannot be done, when the Bill goes to another place, to ensure that this magnificent effort by the miners to assist their aged fellow workers, who get to these homes only after they have borne the heat and burden of the day, shall be brought within the scope of Clause 29.

Sir Harold Webbe: As one who has been something of a critic of this Bill, I feel it is incumbent upon me to thank my right hon. Friend for the consideration which he and his advisers have given to the points which I have ventured to raise, and for the way in which he has met some of the points. My right hon. Friend has very skilfully put all his critics, including myself, under an obligation of gratitude for small mercies, without, perhaps, offering

us very much hope of big ones. I also would like to join in the congratulations which have been offered to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The more one studies this Measure, the more one appreciates the care and thoroughness with which a most difficult problem has been tackled and the skill with which the decisions which the Chancellor has taken have been expressed in the terms of this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer can at least have the satisfaction of feeling that a very difficult task has been well accomplished.
I would like to say a word or two about the Bill as it is now before us for the Third Reading. We all feel—and I am glad to know that the Chancellor himself feels—that the Bill as it stands to-day is, in many respects, a better Measure than it was when it first came before the House. We were glad, too, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make clear that he does not regard it as necessarily the last word, and that in the light of developing circumstances he will keep many of the provisions of the Bill under observation and reconsideration.
I want to draw attention to three points which seem to me to require that further consideration. The first is the much discussed question of value payments. We could not but expect—indeed, we all share the view which the Chancellor expressed yesterday—that it is impossible at this stage to foresee exactly what will be the effect of the provisions of the Bill when those provisions come to be applied, and we therefore welcome all the Amendments which were moved which ensure that when the time comes this matter will be very fully reconsidered. But I confess that I am a little doubtful whether the machinery which the Bill now sets up for that reconsideration will in practice prove to be workable, and I would ask the Chancellor whether in this waiting time he will perhaps look at this whole question of compensation for total loss from a rather different angle. He reminded us yesterday that the purpose of the Bill was two-fold. It was not merely intended to compensate those who had suffered loss, but it had a second, and perhaps even more important, purpose of securing the restoration of those national assets which are destroyed by the war. Obviously the simple way of securing that result would be to say to everyone, "Your building or property has been


destroyed; we will give you the cost of restoring it." In other words, the simple cost-of-works payment. But clearly, such a simple solution of the problem would lead to many property owners receiving benefits to which they had no right and greatly in excess of anything to which they were entitled.
I would ask the Chancellor whether, in these cases of total loss, he would consider giving to the owner the alternative right of taking, instead of a value payment, as provided under the Bill, a cost-of-works payment for the restoration of the property, subject to deduction from that payment of the capital value of any betterment which results from that reconstruction. That seems to me to be essentially just. It would, I think, go a long way to remove the anomalies which seem to be inevitable under the present proposals. I do not believe that it would involve the fund in a substantially greater burden than is likely at present, and it would, I think, have the merit of considerably greater simplicity. I therefore ask the Chancellor whether he would consider that suggestion. It would have one other very great advantage, that by securing the reinstatement of the property, it would keep in their more relative positions all the proprietary interests which now exist, and it would prevent, what might well happen under the present arrangement, a mortgagee from receiving the valuation payment or a substantial part of it and taking the money out and investing it in some other direction. Therefore, I ask the Chancellor whether he would consider that alternative approach to this whole question of the value payment.
The second point to which I want to refer is the rate of contribution. On that I know that at the present moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer is adamant, but I do ask that he will keep his mind open to this extent at least, that, if the happy event should prove that the damage involved is much less than at present is anticipated or feared, he will consider, when he knows the position and when the position becomes clear, in some way reducing the contribution or spreading it over a long term of years and so relieving many property owners of a burden which is likely to prove extremely difficult to bear.
The third point, and the one to which I attach most importance of all, is the question of the obligation of mortgagees to bear their share of the burden which is imposed by this Bill upon all those who have interests in property. The provisions of the Bill in this regard have, I think, attracted more public notice and more criticism than perhaps any other part of the Bill, except possibly the value payment. I have waited through all the discussions which have taken place in Committee to hear from someone in charge of the Bill what were the reasons which induced them to limit the liability of mortgagees to contribute to those cases covered by Clause 20, to the acquisition mortgage on small property. I have had, and, I think, many Members of this House have had, considerable correspondence in regard to this matter, and I, personally, am glad to see from that correspondence, and from other correspondence, leading articles and other articles in the Press, that there is a large number of people who feel that the limits set in Clause 20 are not only quite illogical, but are extremely unjust.
I am glad, therefore, that when the provisions of the Bill in this regard are more fully understood, there will be a growing public feeling that it is wrong that mortgagees, save only for this limited purpose, should escape any liability or contribution under a Bill from which undoubtedly they stand to derive substantial benefits. And on this particular matter I hope that the fight will be continued, and that the Government will be pressed more and more to consider this particular provision. At least, I think the House and the public have the right to expect from the Government some statement of their reasons for the very remarkable position which they took in framing Clause 20. Although the matter has been touched upon in Debate, I can find no word from the Chancellor or from his colleagues of the reasons which have led to this limitation of the liability of mortgagees.
I will conclude, as I began, by congratulating the Chancellor on the great skill with which he has handled a most complicated problem and for producing a Measure which will not only afford great reassurance to thousands of people throughout the country, but will stand as a symbol of our readiness to face facts and of our confidence in ultimate victory.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Although I have not taken any part in the proceedings of this Bill in Committee, I take it that that does not preclude me from saying something on the Third Reading. Many of my hon. Friends and myself have been intensely interested in the passing of the Bill, and sometimes one is able to help a Measure along by keeping quiet rather than by taking an active part in discussions in Committee. However, I wish to associate myself and my hon. Friends with the compliments which have been paid to the Chancellor on the way he has handled the Bill during its passage through the House. I would also say the same of his very able lieutenant, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who does not get many compliments in this House but who works exceedingly hard in his very onerous office. We hope that he will get his reward for the work which he has done.
I followed this Bill closely in the OFFICIAL REPORT. For many hours, night after night, after I got home from the House I read the Debates. In that way I think that one can perhaps learn a good deal more about the matter than one can during discussion. I would like to emphasise two or three points. The way in which my right hon. Friend has met the House has given cause for universal approbation in the country. Apart from the war itself, there is no subject at the present time which touches the lives of the people so much as this particular Bill. No single house in the land is not affected by it, and the concessions made by the Chancellor to enable people to secure fresh homes after bombing, the extra concession of £200, the addition for man and wife, the way in which he dealt with goods and chattels on the revised basis of premium, and his extension to a very much higher figure to enable a larger number of people to come in, have commended themselves to the majority of people in the country. No doubt the Bill and its administration will involve immense difficulties. The names of the Commissioners have not yet been announced. They will have a very big responsibility, and I am sure the Chancellor will se that they are men who will command the confidence of the people by reason of their expert knowledge of property, with its many legal ramifications. I also hope that the Commission

will have a judicial aspect and will have as chairman someone who will command universal respect for his experience, legal knowledge, and administrative capabilities.
There is only one other point to which I wish to refer before I sit down, and that is the relationship between mortgagor and mortgagee. As it was originally in the Bill, it led to a great deal of correspondence to Members of the House from people who did not know what their position would be. Mortgagors and mortgagees thought that one or the other would be subject to hardship, and I think the concession given by the Chancellor in that respect will meet with a great deal of approval. At a time when we are vitally engaged in a life-and-death struggle with the greatest enemy this country has ever faced, I think this Bill will demonstrate once more to the world that by a process of discussion and compromise we can pass such a Measure. With the exception of the India Bill, which was one of 400 Clauses, it is the largest Measure to come before the House. I do not think there has ever before been a Bill of such immense ramifications and complications which has had so many repercussions on the life of the people in this country.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I do not wish to stand, except for a very short time, between the Financial Secretary and the concluding stages of this Bill. I know that not only this House but the country itself is anxious to see the Bill become law. I want to refer particularly to Clause 35, Sub-section (5). Under it, schemes may be made and the Ministry of Transport may make contributions towards the amount paid by local authorities to ensure recompense in the case of damage done to roads. The limitation as put down is 50 per cent, of the charge which the local authority may have to pay. I admit, quite frankly, that I had an Amendment down to deal with this point, but as I was taking the chair at another meeting in this building, I could not, unfortunately, be here to move it had it been called. I think it is a defect that this 50 per cent, should remain in the Bill, and I would like to see it come out. I can visualise clearly cases in which a great deal of damage may be done in a rural area or an urban area— for this provision applies not only to


county councils but to borough councils that have control over roads—where there is a very low rateable value. I consider it is a mistake to have in the Bill a limitation concerning the contribution that may be made by the Ministry of Transport from the Road Fund towards the expenses of such an authority. It would be an advantage when the Bill is in another place, to take away this limiting power, so that the Ministry of Transport could make a larger grant in cases where it is desirable owing to the low rateable value in an area which has suffered a considerable amount of damage, and which has to make a large contribution —because it is not yet clear whether the rateable value or the amount spent on roads is to be the basis on which the authorities will have to make their contributions. A decision has yet to be made whether it will be the rateable value or some other basis of calculation that will determine the amount of the contribution which the authority has to make. If, in another place, it were possible to amend the Bill so as to leave with the Ministry of Transport discretion as to the grant that should be made, it would be a great addition to the advantages of the Bill.
I cannot conclude my remarks without thanking Ministers for the undertaking that was given yesterday that the definition of "damage" would be considered in another place and that in the Bill itself there would be inserted a definition of what is to be considered damage. I feel that there are certain cases where unavoidable damage may be done, damage which is not actually attributable to enemy action but which will mean a loss to the individual, and I consider that such damage should be taken into consideration. I wish to express my thanks for the undertaking that has been given in this matter. I want generally, not only on my ownbehalf—in the Debates I have spoken for agriculture—but also on behalf of the County Councils Association, for whom I have put forward many Amendments, to thank Ministers for the manner in which they have met these Amendments in most cases and the attention they have given to them. I shall support the Third Reading of the Bill in the sincere hope that the damage which has taken place, and which will take place, will be in some measure alleviated by the compensation that may be paid under this Bill.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, I wish to express thanks for the kind things that have been said about our conduct of the Bill through the House. As the Minister more particularly responsible for their activities, I want also to say how glad I was to hear the right hon. Member opposite refer to the work of the Parliamentary draftsmen and of our advisers on these very technical matters. It is one thing for hon. Members or for Ministers to suggest doing something; it is quite another thing for those who have to decide exactly how it has to be done.
I have been asked one or two questions to which I will now reply. My hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) harked back once again to his old love, the problem of the mortgagor and the mortgagee. I do not think he was quite right when he said that my right hon. Friend has never said anything much about that matter. If my hon. Friend will look at the Chancellor's Second Reading speech, he will see that my right hon. Friend explained the general ideas in his mind about the Clause dealing with this problem. In fact, the only exception to the general rule that has been made is that my right hon. Friend felt justified in making an exception from what was and is the long-established practice as between mortgagor and mortgagee only in certain types of housing and agricultural property where the relationship more resembles that of landlord and tenant. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) was going to ask me something about the insurance of farms, but lo and behold, it was about roads that he spoke. Earlier in the Debate he made an interruption concerning farms. I will answer that interruption, unless he was satisfied—

Sir J. Lamb: I received a satisfactory reply from the Minister at the time.

Captain Crookshank: My hon. Friend, in his speech, raised a point concerning roads. I should have been more ready to deal in detail with that matter yesterday than I am to-day, but I can say this. My hon. Friend is anxious about the grant towards the contribution not exceeding 50 per cent. I think that some of the confusion, not I am sure in my


hon. Friend's mind but perhaps in the minds of people with whom he has been in contact, is caused by the fact that they do not understand that this has nothing to do with the compensation. The compensation is quite another matter and is not related to the grant. We shall discuss the whole highways scheme later on. This small point deals only with the amount which the Road Fund is to pay as its share of the contributions of the highway authorities. When my hon. Friend says that it might be unfair to some authorities because of their low rateable value, I ask him to remember that in the Committee stage we left open the question as to what was to be the method of calculating the share paid by the different authorities—whether it should be the rateable value, mileage or any other kind of arrangement which seemed fair as between authorities for making up the sum total that would be required from them by way of contributions. For the rest, I think we can only say that any points concerning the future must lie with the future. As hon. Members know, there has to be further legislation on a number of matters, but I should imagine that this legislation will be largely based and moulded on the provisions of this Bill.
The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) asked a question about which I have written to him already, although he may not yet have received my letter. He asked about miners' homes. Like any other institutions or organisations which think they are covered by the charitable clause, the position of miners' homes will be decided by the wording of the Measure. If the charitable purposes are charitable purposes for the relief of poverty, they will get the advantage of Clause 33, and if not, they will not get that advantage. It is merely a question of fact that will have to be decided in each case.
I always think that the most valuable final speech that can be made by the Minister on the Third Reading is a speech that tries to put in a very succinct form, for the benefit of hon. Members who have not been able to attend the Debates, what the Bill is about, and for some of those who have been present, to clarify what has been very much confused by a mass of sometimes contradictory verdicts—in fact, to have a place where a vade mecum

can be found of what we have been trying to do. I want briefly to give two or three instances of what will happen to people in certain circumstances, so as to give hon. Members a better picture of what we have been doing in the debates in Committee. May I take first the case of a man who has a factory? What does he have to pay under the Bill? He pays contributions at the rate of 2s. in the £ on the building and some of the plant in it. A bomb hits his factory, leaving it too badly damaged to repair. What happens then? He will receive for his factory a value payment fixed in relation to 1939 prices. That will cover some of the plant, but what will happen to the movable plant which has been insured under the proposals of this Bill? The movable plant will have been insured under the compulsory business scheme at 30s. per cent., and compensation will be given in respect of the damage done by reference not to 1939 prices, but by reference to the state of the plant at the time the bomb dropped. That case will, of course, be fairly common. The time of payment will be when it is to the advantage of the nation, subject to the important principle that payments may be made forthwith in certain cases where it is necessary that reinstatement should be made immediately for reasons of war production.
Now let us take the case of what will happen to a warehouse where, instead of movable plant, commodities are stored which come under the commodities scheme. What happens with regard to contribution and compensation in that case? The warehouse will have been covered by the 2s. in the £ arrangement, and so far as the commodities are concerned, which we will call rubber for the sake of argument, they will pay contributions under the commodities insurance scheme at 4½ per cent. The warehouse is damaged, and the rubber not unnaturally is destroyed. The warehouse can be repaired in due course, and the Commission will probably come to a decision to make a cost-of-works payment. The rubber is covered by the Commodities insurance scheme, and payment will be made on its value at the time the bomb fell. Those are two cases in the industrial world.
May I now take two ordinary cases of house property? Let us take the case of


a single man living in a house in London, with a lease with 40 years still to run. In his house he has his furniture, and the house and the furniture are both destroyed. What will be paid in contribution, and what will that man receive in compensation? He will pay 2s. in the £ on the house, but as he is a tenant with 40 years to run on his lease he will not bear all that burden. His rent is three-quarters or more of the property value. He will recover, in this case, 87½ per cent, of the contributions from the landlord. The damage will not be made good as a cost of works payment, but value payments will be made after the war. It will have to be divided between the tenant and the landlord, because there is a tenancy with 40 years outstanding. The capital interest of the landlord in the property is so very much more than that of the tenant, that he would receive the greater amount of it. On the furniture side the tenant would have insured under the chattels scheme, if the value was over £200, and he would receive the value of his property in its state when the damage occurred. Let us take now the case of a house in the country situated in a park, and the park is damaged by a bomb. Contributions will be paid at 2s. in the £ on the value of the house and of the park. Presumably the owner would also have insured his furniture, but that is not damaged. What compensation would that man receive for the bombs in the park? That man would have paid on the park, because it is part of the curtilage of the house. Actually the damage to the park valued on the basis of depreciation is so negligible that he would receive practically nothing.
Now let us take the case of agricultural property. These are common cases which may occur, and they show what we have been trying to do. Let us take the case of a small tenant-farmer whose cowshed has been destroyed by a bomb, and who has had 20 bombs on his best pasture-land. What does he pay in contribution, and what does he receive by way of compensation? The contributions on the farm and buildings would have been paid at the preferential rate—that is, 6d.—and, as the farm is held on an annual lease, the contributions would have been paid by the landlord. The cows have been insured, together with his

other stock, under the Business Scheme so that if a bomb falls on the shed and the cows were killed, he would be able to receive the value of the cows at the time the bomb fell. As the cowshed is an essential building for the production of food the landlord would, in that case, probably receive a cost of works payment so that it could be reinstated as soon as possible. The bombs on the pasture-land would depreciate the property value very much, and the landlord in that case would receive the amount of depreciation, but the War Damage Commission might very well attach to it a condition that the money must be spent on bringing the pasture-land back into cultivation.
I will pass over what happens in the case of charities and damage sustained to churches and hospitals. I shall also pass over the case of the local authorities, because they are more accustomed to dealing with these problems and are better able to find out for themselves what is necessary. May I take as my last example the case of the house on a housing estate which has figured very largely in our Debates? A man buys his house through a building society, perhaps four years ago, and it is slightly damaged to the tune of £10. Let us add to that some damage to his furniture. Who has contributed in that case, and who is going to get what? The contributions would have been at the rate of 2s. in the £, but again I must emphasise that the 2s. in the £ is not the whole payment under this Bill. The whole payment is 10s. in the £ spread over five years at 2s., and it deals only with the damage to property up to and including the end of August this year. This 2s. that we talk about is not really 2s. It is only a form of paying the full contribution by instalments.
To get back to the house, the contribution was at the 2s. rate, and, if the mortgage has only run for four years, and the outstanding mortgage is more than three-quarters of the price of acquisition four years ago, the building society will have paid two-thirds of the contribution which has to be found at the rate of 2s. The house is slightly damaged and the amount of the cost-of-works payment is what is going to be paid to put it right. That means that the actual cost of putting the building into order will be found on the presentation of the bills. Who is to get that? Whoever paid the bills. It may


be that in this case the building society said "We will ourselves deal with smaller damages, and we will collect the money." It may be that some other property owners may say it is more convenient to do it themselves, but whoever has done it is the person who is to get paid. As far as furniture is concerned, it is very likely that the furniture amassed by a young couple who have bought a house only four years ago would not be such as to make it necessary to insure it at their own expense at all. They probably would not have got very much more than is covered free by the Bill,
Hon. Members will realise that we have not exactly wasted our time during the Committee stage. My right hon. Friend is most grateful for the assistance that he has received in all quarters.

Mr. Doland: Regarding the Schedules, there seems to be a very great divergence of opinion as to the matter contained in them. Will there be some explanatory pamphlet, or will it be made a little more simple to ordinary folk interested in the Bill as property owners? It Is very complicated for the ordinary person to understand, and, though I have heard in the last 10 minutes something appertaining to the method of payment, and who is to receive the benefits, I do not think it is sufficient explanation in regard to these Schedules and tables.

Captain Crookshank: I do not doubt that the necessary information will be given at all stages by appropriate persons and bodies to make clear what are the obligations that anyone is under. In particular, the Schedules are bound to be in rather difficult language, and one does not expect the man in the street to be able to understand every word of the Bill straight away. I doubt whether the hon. Member himself or all the Ministers in charge of the Bill are prepared to answer offhand questions about everything. My hon. Friend can be certain that the Bill will not be thrown at anyone who has to deal with it. There will be certainly be an explanatory memorandum. The suggestion has been made that we should have a lot of propaganda on the subject, but I do not know that that is necessary.

Mr. Silkin: Although much praise has been justly given to the Bill—
I have given some myself—I feel it necessary to strike a jarring note. I think the Measure is one on which we can all congratulate ourselves. It is a very much better Bill to-day than it was when introduced, but there is still a number of points on which I am sure there will be general dissatisfaction. I refer particularly to the position of mortgagor and mortgagee. That is one of the matters upon which there has been less discussion than on any other major matter. There is still considerable inequality in the relations of mortgagor and mortgagee. As regards contributions, it has never been made clear why one particular type of mortgagee should make a contribution and another should not. As the Bill stands, it is only in cases up to a certain limit where a contribution is expected from the mortgagee. In cases above a certain annual value—it has been changed now— no contribution is expected. Again, there is one particular type of mortgage for which a contribution is to be given by the mortgagee, and that is the case where the mortgage was granted for the purpose of the acquisition of the property. I have never been able to understand why, seeing that the principle was conceded that the mortgagor and mortgagee were interested in the property and in the amount of compensation, there should not in all cases be a contribution to the payment by the mortgagee.
Another point on which there will be considerable dissatisfaction is the case where a property is mortgaged and there is practically total destruction; the whole compensation will go to the mortgagee and the mortgagor will probably get nothing. There has been some discussion on that, and I cannot complain that the matter was not properly considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the grievance remains. This is a risk which was not contemplated by either party at the time of the contract. If the mortgagee had imagined that there was a possibility of destruction by enemy action, he would not have advanced the money. Nor did the mortgagor anticipate such destruction, but the position remains that, while neither party to the contract anticipated this as a possibility, the mortgagee is paid in full and the owner of the property gets nothing. That is not a fair distribution of the risk. I feel that here again there will probably have to be some reconsideration of the question.
Among other problems which arise, which may be outside the scope of the Bill but which are very important to the people for whom we are legislating, is the question of a property, destroyed or rendered uninhabitable by enemy action, which is leased, or upon which mortgage interest is payable. The owner of the property gets no use of the property at all. The Bill does not provide compensation for loss of use. Possibly for a long period he will have no benefit out of the property, but he is still compelled to pay the rent. I realise that perhaps the Bill could not have provided it, but at any rate it has served a purpose in enabling some of us to ventilate these difficulties. The same position arises with regard to mortgage interest. A person may be in the position of having to pay both rent and interest in respect of a property which has been totally destroyed and for which he will get no compensation until after the war, and he may not get anything for himself. The whole of the compensation may go to the mortgagee. I am sure the matter cannot be allowed to rest where it is. It may be that it could not be dealt with in the Bill, but we are all expecting that the matter will receive the urgent attention of the Government and that further legislation will be introduced in the near future to deal with these problems, which are almost as important as the question of war damage itself.
And so I will leave it, except to express my personal appreciation of the way in which the Chancellor of the Exhequer and the Financial Secretary have dealt with the undertakings they gave me. I was induced to withdraw a substantial number of Amendments on the undertaking that they would be carefully considered, and I would like to say publicly that I am satisfied that they have been given consideration. Not all of them were met, but where they were not met I am satisfied that they have had sympathetic consideration, and a reason has been given for those Amendments not being met. That is, I believe, unique in the history of British legislation, and I hope that it will be a precedent for the future.

Mr. Robert Gibson: In parting with this Bill, one would wish to pay a tribute to the various Ministers who have applied their minds to its provisions and have adjusted it very materially from time to time. There is, however, one point on

which I fear that I must express disappointment, and that is with regard to the Amendment which I moved yesterday. What I have to say follows on the remarks which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). It is very unfortunate that the Government have not seen fit to put into the hands of the Commission a discretionary power to make some payment to the owner-occupier of the value payment which the Bill provides. I cannot see that the matter is unworkable, as the right hon. and learned Attorney-General said yesterday.
May I crave the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the procedure that is adopted when a company goes into voluntary liquidaton for the purpose of being wound up? In such a position the preferred shareholders have such a claim that in general they would be entitled to take the whole of the assets, but in order to effect a fair reorganisation of the company the preferred shareholders limit their claim so as to leave something over to the ordinary shareholders, and in the reorganisation the ordinary shareholders still have a stake in the concern as reorganised. There is something approaching that position in the corresponding situation of the owner-occupier as against the person whom we call in Scotland the bond-holder. The bond-holder approximates to the position of the preferred shareholder while the owner-occupier approximates to the position of the ordinary shareholder. In ordinary daily practice we find that in the reorganisation of a company the preferred shareholders limit their claim in order to leave something over to the ordinary shareholders. Why, in the working of this Bill, should not there be a similar limitation of the claim of the bond-holder in order that the owner-occupier may take something in equity?
Take another instance. Parliament has had before it in recent times the position of the purchaser under a hire-purchase agreement. Before Parliament sought to limit the Common Law position the purchaser did not have the ownership of the article that was the subject-matter of the hire-purchase agreement until the last instalment had been paid. That worked out to the very great hardship of the purchaser. He might pay up till the last instalment was due and then be defeated at the end of it and lose everything. Par-


liament, in its wisdom, stepped in to safeguard the purchaser, so that he had some kind of right. That was an innovation on the Common Law. Why could not we in this Bill have a similar innovation on the Common Law in order that some kind of equity might be left to the owner-occupier, and the bond-holder, or mortgagee, as the term is south of the Border, restrict his claims. After all, are we not dealing with a very special matter? As my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham says, we are dealing with something that was not in the contemplation of the parties to the bargain when it was entered into. It is something new. It is fundamental in our legal conception that when something new enters into a contract—out-with the contemplation of the parties and arising from the outbreak of war—so as to upset the basis of the contract, it is right and proper that Parliament should step in and do something to redress the balance. I hope that it may yet be possible, during the further course of this Bill, that the right hon. Gentlemen who have got these many problems at heart and are very anxious to do justice as between the parties, will not leave the owner-occupier unprotected but will look with a kindly eye upon what is the everyday practice where a company is being reorganised. I am not without hope that something may still be done to remedy the very unfortunate position in which the Bill leaves the owner-occupier.

Mr. Selley: I want to pay my tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this Bill, but I cannot let it pass without adding my protest to that which was made by my hon. Friend although I did not hear the whole of his speech. It is all very well to talk about our having given £500, now raised to £800, to someone who is dispossessed to enable him to start his home afresh. How is any man whose property is mortgaged either to a building society or to a private mortgagee or to his bank to go to the Government and ask for a penny to re-establish himself in that home unless that mortgage is paid off? I put another point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The whole idea of this War Damage Bill is to repair the damage. I suggest that it will be impossible for any owner-occupier who has an equity of £200 or £250 in his house to re-build it. The Chancellor

of the Exchequer ought to be seized of the difficulty such a man is in.
First of all, the building society is bound to see that the money they have lent comes back to them. The man whose house has been wholly destroyed is supposed to get 2½ per cent, on the value while the house is totally demolished, but at the same time he is paying the building society 5 per cent., and that interest may be accumulating for three or four years. I suggest that a man in that position will lose heart; he will feel that he will never be able to rebuild his house and will "give up the ghost," and building societies will be left with hundreds of sites up and down the country and nobody but themselves to step in and do the work. I feel that the Commission should try to see whether they cannot make some arrangement whereby those equity owners shall not lose everything. There should be an attempt on the part of either the Government itself or by means of some corporation to put those houses into the condition in which they were before the damage was done, in order that the owner-occupier may not lose an equity which represents his hard-earned savings. Otherwise, there will be a good deal of disappointment in the country.
There is one other point. We have talked of equality of sacrifice, but in this case there is no equality of sacrifice. There are all the big mortgagees in the country who have lent money on property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to say: "Up to £150, unless it is for acquisition, no contribution is to be made." His postbag must have been a very heavy one. As a private Member I have had scores of letters, showing the injustice, and I say without hesitation that capital in property to-day and the property itself should be synonymous. It may not be possible for them to pay the whole amount. Take, as an example, the money that has been lent by banks. I have been a bank borrower for 40 years and I have never had difficulty in getting a certificate from my banker showing how much of that money was on property paying Schedule A tax. The certificate was given, and it was passed over to the Income Tax authority. To say that it is impossible to deal with banks or with the big money is unbelievable. I shall not believe it, and until this matter is rectified there will be such an


agitation that property will be thrown into chaos.
I know a case within half-a-mile of this House where an estate has been damaged to such an extent that £40,000 a year has been lost to the company concerned. At that time, they had been asked to pay 2s. in the £, amounting to something like £10,000 a year, in order to insure against damage. On the other hand, their mortgagees will be able to come in and foreclose, not only on that property but on any other asset that the company may possess. Needless to say, these points will have to be considered seriously, otherwise the whole of the property-owning and money lending interests will be badly involved before we get through with this terrible business.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (POSTPONEMENT OF FINANCIAL INVESTIGATION) BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].

Resolution reported:
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the drainage of agricultural land in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses to be incurred by the Secretary of State under the said Act and in so far as those expenses are recovered in the manner provided by the said Act to provide for their payment into the Exchequer.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Expenses of the Secretary of State.)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I beg to move, in page 5, line 21, to leave out:
so far as not recovered in manner provided by this Act.

This Amendment and the one that follows, are drafting in character and are designed to bring the Bill into line with the terms of the Financial Resolution, which has just been unanimously approved by the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 23, at the end, add:
and any sums recovered by or paid to the Secretary of State under this Act shall be paid into the Exchequer."—[Mr. T. Johnston.]

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Leicester, which was presented on 21st January and published, be approved."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT.1932.

Resolved,
That the Orders made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section I of the Act to the under-mentioned areas, namely: —

(1)the Borough of Honiton;
(2)the Urban District of Long Eaton;
(3)the City and County of Kingston-upon-Hull;
(4) the Urban District of Leighton Buzzard;
(5)the Urban District of Milford Haven;
(6)the Urban District of Wymondham; and
(7) the Rural District of Wincanton
copies of the first two of which were presented to this House on 13th February, and copies of the remainder on 19th February, be approved." — [Mr. Mabane.]

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (CONTRACTOR'S EMPLOYE).

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Mr. Daggar: I desire to raise the case of Mr. F. Landon, one of my constituents, who in my opinion has been unjustly, if not shamefully, treated by the Department of which the Minister of Supply is the head. The Minister, I think, is not disposed to divest himself of a measure of responsibility simply because the incident to which I refer occurred before he took office. As he has had an opportunity of dealing with this case, I propose to demonstrate that his defence is extremely weak and his attitude most unreasonable. This man, after being idle for several years, because of the long period of industrial depression from which my constituency has suffered, secured employment on constructional work preparatory to the erection of a Government ordnance factory. He was employed in the felling of trees, carrying trees and also fences. He commenced work on 10th June last year. He had to travel by bus a distance of 15 to 16miles from home, and was then obliged to walk a distance of two miles to and from the place of employment. Having had, it has never been denied, the complete confidence of his employer, a Mr. Morgan, and having given entire satisfaction, after a period of11 days he was dismissed; in other words, without having any opportunity of meeting the charges, or permission to examine the case upon which he, in other words, had been "sacked." While it is true that there were others similarly treated, this is the only case in which I am expected to take an interest. He handed the particulars to me, and I then wrote a letter to the Minister of Supply, who at the present moment is the Home Secretary. I sent a letter on 8th July and received a reply on 2nd August. Among other statements in the letter, I propose to read this one because it is relevant to the point which I am anxious to make. I was told by the Minister:
The reason why the employment of these men within this factory was terminated was that, through the proper channels, information had been supplied indicating that there was a measure of risk to the public interest in their continued employment and you will

appreciate how desirable it is, at the present time, for caution to be observed by the officials of our factories where there is any doubt as to an employé's credentials. After careful consideration, I have reached the conclusion that, with certain exceptions, the men discharged may be offered re-employment, or, where they were employés of contractors at the factory, that the embargo upon the issue of factory passes to them may be removed. An appropriate authority to the Superintendent of the factory is being issued forthwith and will cover the case of Mr. Landon.
This man was discharged, notwithstanding the long period of unemployment and the fact that he had to maintain a wife and two children, with a son serving in the Army at the time. He was eventually reinstated at the factory, part of which had been re-erected on 7th October. He was employed at that time under the Superintendent of the ordnance factory. My complaint is that as this man was discharged upon information gathered by the Department's representative, and as he was subsequently reinstated upon much more important work, it is clear that he was wrongfully dismissed, and in my opinion is entitled to some measure of compensation. With the view of achieving this object, I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Supply. He had also discussed the matter at an interview that I had with him, and at my request he sent me the following communication:
As indicated in Herbert Morrison's letter to you of the 2nd August, precautions necessary in the public interest had to be taken in regard to a number of men who were employed either by the factory or by contractors working at the factory …
—all I need do here is to point out that this man was employed by a contractor who was engaged upon the work necessary in order to prepare for the erection of the factoryitself—
… amongst whom was Mr. Landon, and the action taken by the factory management was to withhold the issue of a pass for entry into the factory. This action (which was taken on or about 22nd June) was taken, bona fide, on information received and was dictated solely by regard for the public interest; it would not have prevented the employers from having offered Mr. Landon work on other contracts. I understand that the work of this firm of contractors ceased at the factory on the 31st July. After consideration of representations made by you and other Members of Parliament respecting some of the men affected, the Superintendent was vested by Herbert Morrison with authority to release the embargo on the issue of a pass for Mr. Landon and he found employment on the staff of the factory itself in October last.


It need only be pointed out as a strange procedure for the Department, who defend this action, to allow this man to be reinstated not on work preparatory to the erection of the factory but on work in the factory itself. I submit that that letter is no defence against a claim for compensation. It is seriously suggested that the firm of Messrs. Morgan was not prevented from employing Landon elsewhere. I want to know what that has to do with the issue. As far as this man is concerned it would have been precisely the same whether Morgan employed him at the place where the factory now stands, or whether he was employed on a site in Cardiff or Newport. In my opinion, the issue is that this man was dismissed, not by the contractors, Messrs. Morgan and Company, but because of the Ministry's intervention. It was the Minister and not the contractor who sacked the man, and it is also the Ministry who reinstated him. In my submission, Mr. Landon, had he been employed in another set of conditions, would have been able and entitled to have sought redress in a court of law for his wrongful dismissal.
It appears that the Minister is being sheltered because a Government Department is involved. Why this thin-drawn distinction between a contractor who is paid by the Government and a factory owned by the Government itself? It is an unreal distinction. Employment by this contractor Morgan is no different from employment by the Department itself, and a more fallacious communication never left the Department. In his letter the right hon. Gentleman states that the contractor finished his work on 31st July. Obviously the implication there is that in any event this man would have terminated his employment. Even if that is accepted, this man was idle for five months—a period for which the Minister is not prepared to give any consideration at all. He was dismissed because of the unreliable information supplied by the Department's representative. Such an implication is very strange, in view of the fact that other men—30 in number—with whom Landon had worked were taken over by those in charge of the factory on 21st July and are still working at this factory.
To talk about public interest and good faith is, in my opinion, entirely beside

the point. Landon was dismissed because of information supplied by the representative of the Department. He was reinstated on much more important work, if we agree that to be employed in an ordnance factory is more important from the point of view of public interest than the employment of a man in felling trees or the erection of premises. Proof of the unreliability of the statement is evidenced by the fact that he was ultimately reinstated. That leaves only one conclusion, and that is that he was wrongfully dismissed. In my opinion, he is entitled to a measure of compensation for five months' enforced idleness.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I hope my hon. Friend will absolve the Minister from any discourtesy in not being here to-day. I have been in communication with my hon. Friend on a number of occasions in the hope of arranging a Debate on this point, and it is unfortunate that the Minister is not able to be hereto-day. I have no quarrel at all with the way in which the facts have been presented, but there are one or two additions which, I think, ought to be made in order that the House should clearly appreciate the situation as we see it. It is not true to say that this man was dismissed by the Minister of Supply or by the ordnance factory, because he was never employed by them. Nor is it quite accurate to say that after a period he was reinstated. He could only be reinstated in work which he had been doing previously. The actual position, as my hon. Friend said, was that this man was employed by a contractor. He entered that employment on 10th June last year. From 20th June the then Minister thought it necessary to give instructions that a pass should be refused to this man and other men to enter the factory. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not possible for me to go in great detail into the reasons for that decision, and I hope he will carry his mind back to the conditions of that time.
All I can say is that the late Minister and the present Minister satisfied themselves that there was no other decision which they could properly take in the public interest. The work upon which this contractor was engaged came to an end on 31st July. During the period


between 21st June and 31st July there was no reason why this man should not have been employed by this contractor or another contractor on other work except on this particular site. My information is that in fact other work was being carried on by this contractor elsewhere. The work, as I say, ended on 21st July, and it was agreed early in August, as a result of various representations, that this refusal of a pass to work in the neighbourhood of the factory could be removed in the case of a considerable number of the men, among whom was Mr. Landon. At that time there was a considerable number of men who were expecting to obtain employment in the factory as it became completed and started normal operations.
As a result of a sense of what was proper, following many representations made by hon. Members, including the hon. Member who has just spoken, a special effort was made to see that this man was given employment as early as possible after the decision that he could be allowed a pass in the neighbourhood of the factory. In the first weeks of August a special representative was sent to the neighbourhood to see whether employment could be found. On 17th August his name was put forward by the local Employment Exchange, and he was interviewed with a view to finding him a job as a timekeeper. That was found not to be satisfactory, and at that time it was not possible to employ him in the factory itself. I may say that 600 or 700 men were at that time waiting, hoping to obtain employment in the factory as it became sufficiently completed to give them permanent employment. My hon. Friend wrote again to the Minister on 11th September, and a fresh effort was made, and finally suitable employment was found on 7th October. After working for two months at the factory he voluntarily took his discharge on 7th December. I think that in all these circumstances the House will feel that the Minister has treated this man with no injustice, but with every consideration.
We still claim that we were justified at the time when it was decided to withhold passes from a number of men. These men were not employed in the factory, but by a contractor. After careful consideration and fresh inquiries, started, I am bound to say, with the help of hon.

Members who brought the matter to our attention, it was decided in August to remove this embargo and allow passes to a number of men again. Efforts were made to see if employment could be found for Mr. Landon, and work was found for him in October, but after two months he voluntarily left the factory, and we have no further trace of him. I hope the House will feel that the late Minister and the present Minister did their best to deal with this case. The House knows the difficulty Ministers have in giving precise reasons as to why it was thought necessary in the public interest to make the initial decision to withdraw passes, but the matter has been carefully reconsidered and every effort made to prevent injustice.
The fact that the matter was reconsidered is not a reason for my hon. Friend to say that we are impaled on the horns of a dilemma. He said that if on the one hand we were right in refusing a pass, then on the other hand we were wrong in giving it again. Surely he would have argued much more strongly against us if, in the light of changedconditions—and there were considerable changes, which I cannot go into as to the character of the factory—we had persisted merely for the sake of justifying ourselves in the attitude which we originally took. We considered the case very carefully, we tried to find employment for the man, we did find him employment in October, and after two months' work he left of his own voluntary action. I hope therefore that the House will agree that in the circumstances we have acted with propriety.

Mr. Daggar: What has the fact that he has now left the employment got to do with the kind of employmnet he had when the Government prevented him from working for Mr. Morgan? That is very conveniently overlooked. In addition, it is not right to draw a distinction between his employment by Mr. Morgan and his employment now at the factory, because it was not the contractor who dismissed him; the contractor sacked him because of the intervention of the Department. What I am anxious to know is, if there was something wrong with the man and he had accordingly to be dismissed, what has become right with him to cause him to be reinstated, not on constructional work, not in the employment of Mr. Morgan, but in the Department's own


direct employment? I think it is most unfair that a man should be rendered idle upon those grounds for a period of months and that no consideration should then be given to granting that individual a measure of compensation.

Orders of the Day — LANCASHIRE COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I venture now to turn to another subject, and I trust the House will forgive me if I draw the attention of the Government and of the House to the position of the Lancashire cotton industry. I am very pleased that this opportunity has arisen to put before the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade some facts of which he may be aware but of which, also, he may not. I want to make it clear at the outset that in raising this issue on the Adjournment we are not giving away our rights to have a full-dress Debate on the Lancashire cotton industry later on if needs be. I think the position is sufficiently serious for those engaged in that industry to warrant my saying that; but before I proceed to deal with the cotton situation may I enter a caveat? Whenever there is anything wrong with coal, agriculture or engineering, the House of Commons is made aware of the difficulties at once, and a full-dress Debate can take place, especially on agriculture or coal, but that is not so in the case of cotton. Although this industry may not have the political influence in the House and in Government that is possessed by either coal or agriculture, the right hon. Gentleman will know better than I do that cotton, especially its export side, is quite as important to this country and its economy as either of the other two industries I mentioned.

Mr. Cary: The cotton industry is still the basic economy of British trade in the export market.

Mr. Davies: The present situation of the cotton industry in Lancashire cannot, of course, be regarded as disastrous, but I am sure it is acute; in any case, sufficiently serious to bring its problems before Parliament. Up to a few years ago the exports of this industry took first place in the records. They have recently fallen to second place, in the main because of the disturbances caused by the Great War. After some little recovery it finds itself once again in this present conflict the victim of the shipping casualties which are bound up with war.
One thing that I want to make clear before I turn to details: I think this industry is more severely affected by war than any other in the country. Lancashire manufactured goods have found their way into every market of the world." Every country knows about this product. Therefore when war breaks out the whole of its export trade is upset, especially when there are shipping difficulties, such as we are meeting with at the moment. It is well known that some time ago a severe restriction was placed upon the cotton industry in Lancashire, at a slant, as it were, when the Government decided that only a percentage of sales of manufactured cotton goods should be sold through the warehouses and shops at home. The Lancashire cotton industry felt the blast of that restriction at once, but the loss caused by that restriction was made good in a great measure by the fact that the Government used so much cotton production for the Services. Although complaints were made by the industry at that time, I do not think that they were as strong as those that emerge from the present restriction. I am not so familiar with the problem as are some hon. Gentlemen here, who are actually engaged in the industry, but I have said before that the less I know of a subject the more eloquent I can become upon it. I may, therefore, be forgiven if I put the case just as I have been told it by some of those actually engaged in the industry.
If I know the attitude of the Lancashire cotton people it is, that they do not want to be deceived by the Government as to the reasons for the restrictions which are to be imposed. They know the reasons too well. As this is not a party issue, but one which affects all parties alike in Lancashire, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that, although the Lancashire cotton industry may not have the political influence of coal, iron, and agriculture, it wants the same kind of square deal as is meted out politically to those other industries. It does not want more. If there is shipping space left for other products, cotton wants its proper proportion of that space. When we come to analyse the situation, it seems to me that the industry is a little annoyed because certain Departments of State have not co-ordinated their policy in this connection. This announcement has been plastered all over Lancashire, and has


been circulated quite recently. It is an invitation by the chairman of the Cotton Board. Let us see what Mr. Streat says:
In this time of national emergency the cotton industry is Lancashire's trust and reponsibility. Whatever the enemy may do, its work must go on. It is the duty of everyone in Lancashire to help the cotton industry. If you have textile skill, you should offer your services at once. Of work there is plenty in waiting.
This is circulated just at the very time when the right hon. Gentleman's Department is putting further restrictions on the industry. Then you have Lord Willing-don's Commission in the South American republics asking customers there to buy Lancashire-manufactured goods. While that Commission is soliciting orders there, you have the right hon. Gentleman's Department putting these further restrictions into operation. I now come to the question of implementing the restrictions about to be imposed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stand up at that Box fairly soon, when he has decided on his policy, to tell Lancashire what that policy actually is. But while he is shaping that policy, it is only fair to him and to the Lancashire people that he should know what is passing through their minds. I put one point, which may be the chief point at issue. When the new restriction is imposed, will he bear in mind one thing that makes some manufacturers nervous? If you close two mills out of 10 owned by a combine, the combine still survives. The closing of two mills out of 10 may not mean very much to the profits of the concern. The managerial staff may not be disturbed very much. But when you come to a single mill owned by one or two persons, or by a family, and you close that mill, you will see at once the calamity that is likely to happen to that family. I put that to the right hon. Gentleman because I think there is a conflict of opinion as to how this restriction is to be put into practice. If you spread the restriction over the whole industry and curtail production proportionately, you may get over your difficulties in that way, but I understand that while some of the Manufacturers Association are in favour of what they call the "spread-over" the tendency in Government circles is to say, "No, we want to restrict production by reducing the number of mills at work."
I will leave that point and come to something that is a little more personal still. People have asked me—and that is why I am speaking here to-day— whether I can say something in Parliament about this particular problem. If the Board of Trade throws it upon the industry to implement the restrictions— and some of them are afraid of that— you hand the problem over to a few of the leading manufacturers in the Associations, and some of the small firms are a little nervous that they will be squeezed out even by their own leaders because of the tendencies of the time. What are those tendencies? They are to be found in banking, transport, and certainly in distribution, which I know best. The whole tendency of recent years has been towards large amalgamations and the gradual squeezing out of small firms. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to bear that point in mind in particular. There are small textile firms in my Division, and I think I can speak on their behalf. I am not at all sure that in cotton manufacturing the small firm is not more efficient, and more generous maybe to its employés than the big amalgamations.
I come to one or two other issues. The point has been made that the industry is to be restricted in order to provide more persons for munitions work. I wish the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) were here, because he knows more about it than any of us, and could speakmore effectively. But I have just a little knowledge of Lancashire, and of the textile industry too. I want the right hon. Gentleman to remember that, when he closes textile mills, I am not so sure that the Government will find as many transfers of workers to munitions as they would get from some other industries. A large proportion of the workers in this industry are married women, and everybody knows how difficult it would be for them to leave their homes and go out of their own villages to work. They cannot do it as easily as men and single women. Therefore, I say that we should not build too much upon the possibility of a great mass of these people being transferred to the munitions industry.
Finally, I would say this, which is by far the most important thing of all: I


believe that those engaged in this industry feel that they are not doing their duty either to themselves, their county or the State if they allow this industry to be killed by Government restriction during the war. Let us all remember the technicalities of this industry. I have been a coal miner, and coal mining is a difficult and dangerous job, but it is simple in operation compared with working in a cotton mill or in a weaving shed, where the technicalities are multifarious and for which it takes a great deal of training and skill. We have now had three or four generations of families employed in this industry, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, whatever else he does, to beware of doing anything which will destroy this fundamental part of our economy. I have had the honour of representing a seat in Lancashire for 20 years, and I have some textile workers in my division. If it is wise that Ministers should go out to consult with industrial leaders in other industries, I suggest that the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Supply and, probably, the Minister of Shipping too, might visit Lancashire to face the people there and tell them the truth. If they do that I am sure of one thing: they will find them as willing as anybody to suffer the inconveniences of war. They are as patriotic as the rest; but one thing above all they require, and that is a square deal from the Government.

Mr. Cary: I intervene in the Debate only to supplement some of the things said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I do agree with him that the existence and prosperity of the cotton trade are vital to the life of this country. If disaster were to overtake that trade it would not be merely a disaster for the industry; it would be a disaster for the whole of our national life. I think that the House has treated the cotton trade as something of less importance than any other great industry, and perhaps the fault may, indeed, lie with Lancashire itself in that it has been so difficult to get agreement within the industry.

Mr. Silverman: They have got it now.

Mr. Cary: That may well be, but I feel that the Government have a difficult task in that they have to take drastic steps to bring the necessary energy to our war machine and at the same time safeguard

the interests of a great industry like the one we are discussing to-day. As far back as 1925, the cotton trade, in terms of money, represented an annual turnover of £200,000,000, a figure far beyond that reached by any other trade in the country. In the space of 10 years, it declined to an annual turnover of £60,000,000, but even at £60,000,000 it still remained one of the most basic and vital industries of the country. I hope it will continue to do so.
I want to put to the President of the Board of Trade two points which I hope he will bear in mind before presenting proposals to the House. The first is this. When he presents those proposals, I hope he will show clearly the approximate number of workers who will be taken out of the home trade of the cotton industry and placed in new employment in war industries. It is stated in some quarters that the Government anticipate that they will obtain as many as 100,000 workers from the cotton trade to be diverted to war work. Is that figure anything like the truth? In other quarters—and according to the pamphlet to which the hon. Member for Westhoughton has drawn attention—it is stated that there is at the present time a shortage of labour in the industry as it exists, not only for the work that is being done in the export trade, but in some sections of the work that is still supplying the home trade.
The second point I want to make concerns not only the present, but is vital for the after-war years. I think it may be proved more beneficial in the end to the national interest that what is left in the home trade should be spread over as great a number of businesses as possible rather than concentrated in the hands of a limited number of businesses. I feel that if too much in the way of individual business were destroyed in an industry like the cotton trade, one would destroy the vital machinery of business that would be most valuable to the nation in the immediate post-war years. Those years may be the grimmest years ahead; against them the war years may be comparatively easy. This much, however, is well known in any industry. If one destroys the machinery of a sound business, the rebuilding of that business may take as many years as it took months to destroy it. I hope that when the President of the Board of Trade presents his proposals—he cannot say any-


thing about them this afternoon, because he is dependent upon the industry in the framing of them—he will show clearly the number of workers who are to be switched from the cotton industry to war industries, and show us that there is some principle underlying the spread of the remaining trade in the home industry.

Mr. Rickards: I feel that the present situation is the biggest thing that the cotton trade has ever had to face. Therefore, I have tried, in my own constituency, to get in touch with employers and employés. It is very difficult to discuss, let alone criticise, a policy of which we are not sure, but there are two or three points on which everybody seems to agree. If there is a great cutting-down in the trade, let it be spread over and not confined to certain firms. All seem to be agreed on that point. Obviously, it is easier to cut down in a combine or a large business than it is in the case of a firm which possesses only one small shed. A small firm is faced with an intolerable difficulty after the war if it wishes to re-enter the trade. Another point which arises, if a mill is closed down and the Government take it over for munitions, is what they are to do with the machinery. In almost every town it is impossible to find anywhere to store it. Obviously, firms cannot build places to store it and machinery cannot be left out in the yard.
The only alternative seems to be to sell this valuable machinery as scrap, but if that is done, nine-tenths of its value is gone. Just imagine the difficulty of a firm. Supposing it had £20,000 worth of machinery and only receives £2,000 for it. Where is it to find the money to re-enter the trade when the war is over? I hope also that thought will be given to the varying conditions in towns. Some towns are crying out for labour and in their case, if mills were closed down, employés could soon find work. That is not so in every case because in my own town of Skipton, where about 90 per cent, of the operatives are women, we should find there was no other industry which could absorb them if they were turned out of the cotton trade. Out of this 90 per cent., 75 per cent, are married and cannot leave their husbands and children and start fresh households elsewhere. That means they have to "stay put" and that they will very likely have to join the ranks of the

unemployed, which is what we want to avoid. I hope that before the Government offers us a fait accompli it will be possible to have a full and careful Debate in this House.

Mr. Burke: I wish to stress what has already been said by other hon. Members that before the proposals are brought forward, this House should have an opportunity of discussing them at considerable length. We have had fairly lengthy debates on the question of coal and agriculture, but the great industry of cotton receives rather scant consideration. The cotton trade is still our chief export industry, and if we want currency abroad and means of exchange, we shall have to rely upon it more and more. Lancashire would like to be told quite frankly and early, but not by some regulation issued through the Cotton Control Board, what is the idea of these negotiations. Is it really, as has been suggested, to put people into war industries or is it for other reasons connected with shipping? Very much will depend on the attitude of Lancashire as to which of these two reasons is to be given. If it is a question of closing down the mills because of raw material supplies, has the Minister taken into consultation the people who run them? I have a very shrewd suspicion—in fact it is more than a suspicion; it is almost a conviction, and one which will be shared by many in Lancashire—that once these mills are closed many of them will never reopen and, if that happens, there will be calamity after calamity.
If mills are not to be closed, how is the problem of reducing the available amount of employment going to be carried through? There are some villages in Lancashire where the entire population lives on the mills. If it is left to the combines to declare which mills shall be closed, and they are closed in some of the smaller places, there is no alternative occupation for the people. There is nothing else for them to do. Many of them cannot travel distances. They are married women. The small wages earned, even by two people, will present a very difficult problem and increase unemployment very much. On the other hand, if it is to be a question, not of closing down but of spread over, you will revert to the serious problem of people working for 48 hours, getting only half


pay, working two looms instead of four, or something of that sort.
On the other hand, if the intention is to take the people out of the cotton industry and put them on to munitions, the Minister ought to tell us how that is to be done. Is any provision being- made for the people to receive a wage adequate to the double wage that is going into the homes at present? If the woman stays at home, if she will not travel a considerable distance, is she to be penalised? Have arrangements been made for the trades union organisations to accept the transfer of cards and, when the munition works close down and we get back to normal times, are any arrangements to be made for bringing the cotton industry back? There very serious problems are the kind of thing you hear being discussed with great fear and a good deal of doubt in every town in the county, and Lancashire would appreciate a full and frank consideration of the matter by the Minister. We have had an exhibition in Oldham in order to draw parties into the industry. It has met with a measure of success and I understand it is going round to other towns. It is no use trying to get people into the industry, if it is to be reduced and the material is not given it to carry on. I hope the Minister will tell the Minister frankly whether this is a question of munitions or of supplies and will let us know exactly what we are up against. If he will tell us frankly the difficulties and say that discussions are to take place with all sides of the industry, I think he will get the response he wants, but he will not get it in the same way if he proceeds as he has been going on for some little time.

Mr. Silverman: If we are to have a Debate later covering the whole subject-matter which has been touched upon to-day, obviously it would be a mistake to labour the points now, but I join with all who have spoken already in urging that we should have a properly arranged Debate and that in that Debate the Government should treat the industry with complete frankness. The Government will not find the people of Lancashire backward in "making do" with whatever sacrifices the exigencies of the war situation demand"! provided they feel they are being dealt with fairly and frankly and are satisfied, too, that what-

ever sacrifices may be necessary for them now their livelihood will not be sacrificed for all time. Lancashire has some bitter memories of the last war and what followed. During the last war, as now, the industry was necessarily contracted, and while people complained about that they did not grumble about it, because they recognised that it could not be helped. In the years just after the war the war slump was followed by a period of boom. Then everybody was making money, and this Lancashire industry became the victim of what one of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors, Lord Runciman, described a year or two afterwards as "a financial ramp." There are people in Lancashire to-day still suffering from the after-effects of it. I am not thinking of the after-effects upon the industry as an industry, but of the personal, individual tragedies involved. Workers in the industry who had been making a little more money than usual invested it in some very doubtful ventures and lost it all.
In any plans that are necessary now, I am sure the Government will not forget that when this war is over it will still be a very important matter to revive the export industries of this country, and cotton and coal have always been our basic export industries. We may be compelled to do things now, but once markets are lost, once an industry is restricted, it is difficult to get back to the old position. Here I would refer to a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke). If restriction is introduced by the method of closing down some milk altogether, the Government should remember that it is extremely unlikely that all of them will be reopened. The only course left is to spread the work over the others.
You may then get what would, in other industries, be short time, but in this industry is short work, at short wages, over the full time. The Minister knows that the wage system in the industry is peculiar. You are paid for the looms you work. You might spend—that was, of course, before the war—the whole of a 48-hour week standing by idle looms, for the most part, and you went home at the end of the week with no more money in your pay envelope than you could Have got from the Employment Exchange, had you stopped in bed, at home


the whole time. Over and above that, there was no way of making up the deficit under unemployment insurance. You worked full time, but you got only a portion of your wages, and no unemployment benefit of any sort or kind. If there is to be a spread over, that position must be avoided.
I have heard talk about mills being closed. It would be wrong of me, and perhaps impudent, to go into this matter in great detail, but in my constituency, there is a modern, well-equipped mill, which is one of the latest and best mills in Lancashire. It was taken over by the Ministry of Supply, for storage purposes only. Representations were made to the Ministry chat plenty of space was available in near-by mills, and in other places, and that these places were suitable and ready to be used for storage, without the best mill in the town being taken. The Ministry said: "Find us alternative accommodation, and we will release the mill." We spent weeks, searching out alternative accommodation. We found alternative accommodation, and the Ministry accepted it. They paid us the best compliment open to them by using all the accommodation we offered them, but they kept our mill just the same, and they still hold it. If our industry is to contract, other industries will be required in Lancashire, and they were ready to come at that time. This mill was ready for them to use, and there was an opportunity of making this town less of a one-industry town than it used to be. That is the end to which public policy has always been directed, but in this case the Ministry of Supply lost an opportunity.
These matters have to be taken into account. If the industry is to remain contracted, what are the Government going to do about introducing new industries to take the place of that which has been closed down? I hope that at another time we shall have a full Debate, and that the Government, bearing these points in mind, will not make the mistake of having a Debate only when a fait accompli is before us. It has been stated that it is Lancashire's own fault that the cotton industry is the Cinderella of industries and, in my view, that was true, but it ceased to be true before the war, when the agreement was reached. That agreement was not put into operation be-

cause the Government suspended it for the period of the war. Do not delay things further, and do not make the problem worse. Let us have our Debate and make our plans, and let this industry cease to be what it has always been, the Cinderella of the industries.

Mr. Graham White: I rise for the purpose of saying two or three sentences, because they do not happen to have directly fallen from the lips of anyone who has spoken so far, although they may have been raised by implication. There are numbers of people who have given up their occupations and proceeded into other occupations or into the Armed Forces of the Crown with the belief in their minds, supported by such assurances as have been given to them by their employers, that when the war is over they are coming back to their old jobs. These people and their families have been heartened by that belief and by those assurances. But we are considering a great displacement of labour, probably the greatest displacement of labour that has ever taken place. The people who have gone believe that they are coming back into their old industries. We know that that will be an impossibility.
My next point is that if there is anything on which there is common agreement between all parties in this House, it is that when the war is over there shall not be the grinding misery of unemployment which we had after the last war. The simple deduction taken from those two facts is that by what we are doing to-day we are in fact committing the State of this country in future to being by far the greatest employer of labour and to having the responsibility for the employment of labour on a direct scale which is far beyond the contemplation of anybody in this House. If we are to do that, we must recognise it, take such steps as will make those conditions possible, and consider on what terms we can in those conditions preserve the initiative and responsibility which have made this country what it is up to the present time.

Mr. Radford: I feel that we have some difficulty in talking to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on this subject, because we do not know what he is going to do, and, without knowledge of what he is going to do, we are urging him not to do it, or at any rate to be very


circumspect in what he does. I must admit that from conversations which I have had in Lancashire I have gathered that there is a widespread feeling that there is a lack of consistency in the treatment which the industry has received—I will not say from my right hon. Friend, but generally from the Government. First of all, there was a cutting down of the trade that was permissible for home consumption, and the general idea was that that was to leave a greater scope for export. Even on that particular point I do not think that the Board of Trade were well advised, because any practical spinner or manufacturer in the cotton trade will tell you that they have got to preserve a certain balance in the production of their respective mills of goods suitable respectively for export and for home trade. Now we understand that the further curtailment of raw cotton supplies means that we are to cut down deliberately a big proportion of our export trade.
Assuming that that is what my right hon. Friend proposes, has he carefully considered all the repercussions of this action? Has he discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect that will have on his budgetary proposals as far as concerns Income Tax, and in some cases Excess Profits Tax, when there are no longer any profits? On the question of consistency, a Commission has been sent out to South America to try and develop further outlets for our cotton goods. Are we now going to take appropriate steps to prevent the industry from producing and delivering the cotton goods orders secured in South America?
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Rickards) referred to the possible closing of cotton-weaving sheds and spinning mills, whose buildings might be used for munitions purposes, but said that that would involve scrapping the plant. But if a spinning mill is closed down and the building is not required for munitions purposes, it costs about £60 a week to keep the standing machinery clean and in order. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) is present, and I looked across just then for an appreciative nod from him, but he is not giving anything away. It is, however, a fact. A standing mill can cost its proprietors about £3,000 a year merely to keep it clean and

warm. It may be that "needs must when the devil drives," but I feel that deliberate action to cut down and partially kill what has been the principal export industry of Britain in order to provide additional hands for munitions production is a very serious course to adopt. I cannot help thinking that in our country there must be a tremendous number of females who are not actually engaged at the present time on work of national importance and who, if a sufficient appeal were made, could be persuaded to come forward in greater numbers for munitions production. It is a terrible course for us to have to follow to kill what has been for generations the industry providing the principal export of British goods.
Again, we hear that the two things required are the production of the requisites for the successful prosecution of the war and the production of exports in order to maintain our dollar exchange. Cutting down exports will not maintain the dollar exchange. It is true, as my right hon. Friend has no doubt carefully considered, that the raw cotton has to come over here in ships—much of it, incidentally, from our Allies in Egypt as well as our friends in the States. But the ships bringing the materials we require must go back, largely empty, which seems a thousand pities. In a short-sighted effort to secure more female labour for munitions production, are we going to sacrifice those exports which are possible to us, which will help to keep up our exchange position, and whose absence may mean the death of the industry after the war?
It so happens that I am a part-time director of a spinning combine, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) knows. I mention that, although I have no self-interest in what I am going to say, except that I think it is better, if the spreading-out of business is to be attempted, to do it by cutting down among concerns which can close individual branches. You cannot run a branch half-time. Take an individual spinning company with only one mill: you cannot run it economically half-time. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton will agree with me. It is all very well to talk of spreading the work, but as soon as you have to produce the goods, whatever they may be, you have to produce them as far as possible at the lowest economic cost.
You cannot do that in a mill which is only working half-time or less than half-time.

Major Procter: I am sure the President of the Board of Trade is fully aware of the great anxiety which exists in Lancashire regarding the curtailment of the cotton trade. I would like to ask him that whatever he has to do he should do quickly, because so long as this anxiety goes on, and so long as there are only rumours of what is proposed, just so long will the trade be retarded and the owners and employés of the mills unable to do their best work. I understand that the Government's desire is to find more female labour. Are all the resources of the luxury trades exhausted? Is there no excess female labour in other industries where female workers are not so expert, and have not that dexterity which has made the Lancashire cotton workers the greatest producers of exports from which our national wealth has come? Whatever is done in the way of taking female labour from the cotton mills must be done carefully. The President of the Board of Trade must approach this situation as a virtuoso and not as someone trying to play the piano with a sledge-hammer, because if he makes a mistake, he will ruin Lancashire, throw thousands out of work, and paralyse the trade which has helped to build up the British Empire.
I would like to make a concrete suggestion. If the President of the Board of Trade proposes to take female labour away from the mills, let him consider taking away those who are engaged in coarse weaving only, and not those working on the fine counts. A girl whose fingers have been trained from childhood to work in cotton has fingers that are like those of a violinist or pianist. If you put her on munitions work handling shells, you will destroy that girl's skill as a weaver in fine counts for the rest of her life. The chances are that if you take these women from the cotton industry they will never go back to that industry again. Lancashire has had a great struggle during the last 10 years to re-establish the cotton industry. Do not let us make the mistakes which followed the last war.
I ask the President of the Board of Trade to see, if it is at all possible, that the cotton trade is exempt from supply-

ing female labour at all. I know that both the men and women in the cotton trade will do their patriotic duty if what is proposed is shown to be a national necessity, but before any of the female workers are taken from the cotton mills, I ask the President of the Board of Trade to be quite sure that there are no surplus operatives in the luxury trades. Let the cotton industry, which is so vital for our export trade, be the last industry to be interfered with. If the workers are taken away in any great numbers, it will lead to the closing of mills, and when peace comes there will be great unemployment. Finally, will my right hon. Friend consider the incidence of rating on the mills which will be closed through his action? The overhead charges must be met and rates paid. Will these closed mills have the benefits of derating, or will their rates be increased because they are closed, and therefore regarded as warehouses holding idle machinery?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): I hope that the House will excuse me if I deal only in a general way with many of the points which have been raised. I am not in a position to make a general statement on Government policy, but I have some hopes of being able to do so shortly. Nevertheless, I feel that some general observations are called for. I am aware that there is uncertainty in Lancashire about the policy which the Government have to pursue to meet our necessities. I am prepared, as far as lies within my power, to resolve those doubts as quickly as they can be resolved. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) and the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) asked what were the reasons for the proposed restriction. Those reasons are numerous. The first is that the demand for labour for munitions, taking into account the draft made upon our general labour force for the Fighting Forces, is so great that we shall have to provide labour for munitions from all available sources. The hon. Member for Burnley asked whether the difficulty was one of shipping. There is also a shipping difficulty. We have to import vast quantities of raw materials; and as our munitions effort grows, the strain upon our imports of raw materials becomes greater. There is an insistent demand for further industrial plant and storage space. All these things combine


to create a difficult situation for every industry.
The matter is entirely outside controversy—we are dealing with one of the most difficult industrial problems, not only in cotton but in many other industries—and the objective at which we have to aim is perfectly clear. That objective must be to use the plant, labour, and raw material which are available, in the most efficient way possible. The objective can, in theory, be reached only if the working portion of the industry is able to work full time. If, for instance, you had a small industry with 100 firms in it—a luxury industry, perhaps—working at only 33⅓ per cent, of its normal activity, it would be folly to suppose that you could get economic working, and not increase losses over the whole of the firms, if you spread out the 33⅓ per cent, of business amongst them all.
In theory the best result would be for 33 firms to produce the whole output. That is only theory. There are a great many problems overlaying the theory. First of all there is the question whether the firms producing the 33 per cent, of luxury articles are in places which are not safe strategically. Then there is the possibility that the other firms who are now closed down were making specialities. Is the demand for labour in the areas where same of these plants are closed down great and can it readily be absorbed? Are we putting an extra strain on the transfer of labour, another difficult problem? However clear the theory may be it must be recognised that it is complicated by a great many other factors all of which have to be carefully weighed if the use of our resources in war is to be scientific and cause as little dislocation after the war as possible. I think we have to look back to the lessons of the last war as well as forward to the lessons of industry in this war. In the last war a system was in force under which labour was "played-off." This meant that operatives worked for a certain number of days and remained in their homes on others. It became a very popular system of work, but in this war the very word "played-off "must be repugnant to us. We cannot possibly envisage such a situation.
Several hon. Members have referred to the post-war problem. In all the things to which necessity drives us to-day, whether it be concentrated production or the trans-

fer of labour, we must always keep in mind the structure of the industry, and that one day—and we hope it will be soon — it will be necessary to change from war to peace and re-transfer labour back to their old occupations. We must ensure that those who have to deal with the post-war problem will feel that we had it always in mind and will say that their predecessors had sufficient foresight to make the post-war problem soluble.
The general question of the mobility of labour is of course always with us. I know that many of the operatives of the Lancashire cotton industry are married women. We shall have to secure that where transfer takes place to the munition industries single persons—the mobile power of the labour force—are first taken for this purpose. Yet I think that there will be in the neighbourhood of the mill a certain amount of employment in munition industry which even the married women will be able to take up without involving the difficult problems of rehousing and transport and so forth.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Cary) asked whether it was true that we estimated that 100,000 workers would be transferred from the cotton to the munition industry. That figure refers to the total labour force which we think might be released by the Limitation of Supplies (Miscellaneous) Order, which does not, of course, cover the cotton, linen, rayon or silk industries. No estimate as far as I know has been given for the release of labour from the cotton industry. I think it would be very dangerous to make too rigid an estimate, or to work out a programme in a magisterial way.
Several hon. Members have referred to the export trade, and this is not a very easy subject. It is quite clear that in the situation in which we find ourselves our exports must be directed with discrimination. We are not in a position to pour them out in a lavish way. There is such an immense demand on our material, labour and capacity that we cannot countenance such a policy, but we still have the capacity and labour to keep up a substantial export trade, and we must discriminate carefully to secure that so far as possible it fills the need of our customers, maintains our connections for after the war and provides us with all the useful exchange that it can. It must be remembered that some of our exports go to


the Dominions, it is an extremely difficult thing for us to ration our friends from this side of the world, but if they could do without some of the things which they have been accustomed to have, it would be of very definite help to us in waging the war. It would help us to maintain our exports in other markets which may, for the moment, be of greater value and which may be more difficult to regain if they are lost.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) referred to combines and said that where concentration of production takes place, was it not the combine which got the best part of the bargain? I think we must confess that it is very much easier for a concern which has several mills to concentrate production into a smaller number. However, this is one of the most difficult problems we have to solve, and it cannot be solved in a rough and ready way. The thing must be balanced so that any concentration among individual firms is effected with the least dislocation. It is one of the most intractable parts of the problem with which we are faced, but I would like to say how much we are impressed with the need for speed in announcing our policy. I have hopes of making a statement shortly, and as soon as that statement is made we shall be in consultation with industries on the specific measures which they recommend, always bearing in

mind that we must reserve the raw materials and labour force necessary for the successful prosecution of the war.

Mr. Rhys Davies: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about making a statement in the near future, will that be open to Debate in the House?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

Mr. Cary: I take it that there will be no actual proposals for the industry? My right hon. Friend has not that in mind?

Mr. Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman say, if he can, whether a Debate will be possible or not on the statement which he will make? If the statement is made on the Motion for the Adjournment, we may have a word about it if we like, but if it is made simply in answer to a Question or in response to a Private Notice Question, there will be no opportunity for Debate at all.

Mr. Lyttelton: The statement that may be made is one dealing with the problems of a great number of industries, and the question of a Debate on the cotton industry will have to be raised through the usual channels. I have no reason to suppose that such a request would be resisted if the time was available.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.